• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can you refuse a Congressional Subpoena

rjay

rjay

Rocket Surgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
3,105
Reaction score
2,176
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
In my opinion. Put those that do not honor the subpoena, in jail. There they should sit until the courts decide whether or not they have to obey a subpoena.

I have trouble seeing why those with Presidential coverage get a pass on things that would land you or I in jail.

If you want to fight it, fight it from jail, the way poor folks do.
 
I agree. There are probably some narrow grounds where it might be ok to refuse, but they don't apply here.
 
rjay said:
In my opinion. Put those that do not honor the subpoena, in jail. There they should sit until the courts decide whether or not they have to obey a subpoena.

I have trouble seeing why those with Presidential coverage get a pass on things that would land you or I in jail.

If you want to fight it, fight it from jail, the way poor folks do.
Click to expand...

That is certainly within the authority of Congress. However, neither the House nor the Senate can commandeer Federal Executive law enforcement agencies, nor state or local law enforcement agencies to carry out its wishes or jail people for not obeying them. Instead, the Sergeants at Arms of the United States House of Representatives and Senate have the authority to arrest those who refuse subpoenas.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
That is certainly within the authority of Congress. However, neither the House nor the Senate can commandeer Federal Executive law enforcement agencies, nor state or local law enforcement agencies to carry out its wishes or jail people for not obeying them. Instead, the Sergeants at Arms of the United States House of Representatives and Senate have the authority to arrest those who refuse subpoenas.
Click to expand...
Barring that, Congress can do a referral to the U.S. Atty DC office, or seek a civil court order. If the civil court order is then refused, that judge can summarily order the recipient to be held in contempt.
 
Chomsky said:
Barring that, Congress can do a referral to the U.S. Atty DC office, or seek a civil court order. If the civil court order is then refused, that judge can summarily order the recipient to be held in contempt.
Click to expand...

Unless they were appointed by trump.
 
rjay said:
In my opinion. Put those that do not honor the subpoena, in jail. There they should sit until the courts decide whether or not they have to obey a subpoena.

I have trouble seeing why those with Presidential coverage get a pass on things that would land you or I in jail.

If you want to fight it, fight it from jail, the way poor folks do.
Click to expand...

The executive branch gets to decide which law enforcement duties take priority, ask Obama.
 
rjay said:
In my opinion. Put those that do not honor the subpoena, in jail. There they should sit until the courts decide whether or not they have to obey a subpoena.

I have trouble seeing why those with Presidential coverage get a pass on things that would land you or I in jail.

If you want to fight it, fight it from jail, the way poor folks do.
Click to expand...

The last administration refused to obey subpoena's.

Where were all the liberal hypocrites of DP back then on the issue?
 
Simpletruther said:
The executive branch gets to decide which law enforcement duties take priority, ask Obama.
Click to expand...


There’s no evidence to support your whataboutism.

But Trump does that every day,
 
rjay said:
In my opinion. Put those that do not honor the subpoena, in jail. There they should sit until the courts decide whether or not they have to obey a subpoena.

I have trouble seeing why those with Presidential coverage get a pass on things that would land you or I in jail.

If you want to fight it, fight it from jail, the way poor folks do.
Click to expand...

"Only contemptible scoundrels", do that.
 
Our welfare clause is General and must cover every contingency that can be resolved in a market friendly manner.

We should have no illegals or an illegal underclass. Any simple solution will do as long as it promotes the general welfare.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The last administration refused to obey subpoena's.

Where were all the liberal hypocrites of DP back then on the issue?
Click to expand...

If I were President and a member of my administration was found in contempt of Congress, I would ask for their resignation. So, yes, Holder and Lerner should have been fired.

Would you agree with that standard?
 
rjay said:
In my opinion. Put those that do not honor the subpoena, in jail. There they should sit until the courts decide whether or not they have to obey a subpoena.

I have trouble seeing why those with Presidential coverage get a pass on things that would land you or I in jail.

If you want to fight it, fight it from jail, the way poor folks do.
Click to expand...

If the mechanism for enforcing the law is corrupted, then the law is moot.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The last administration refused to obey subpoena's.

Where were all the liberal hypocrites of DP back then on the issue?
Click to expand...

The Obama administration ultimately acquiesced to all of the subpoenas. Now, they did fight certain subpoenas, which points to a rather hefty difference in one very important regard: the Obama administration fought certain subpoenas on material grounds, but did not reject the authority of the House altogether.

Your false equivalency attempt fails.
 
Cardinal said:
The Obama administration ultimately acquiesced to all of the subpoenas. Now, they did fight certain subpoenas, which points to a rather hefty difference in one very important regard: the Obama administration fought certain subpoenas on material grounds, but did not reject the authority of the House altogether.

Your false equivalency attempt fails.
Click to expand...

Holder (H Res 711, June 28, 2012) and Lerner (H Res 574, May 7, 2014) were both found to be in Contempt of Congress. While I realize that these were both largely partisan votes, nevertheless, the determinations of Congress must be taken seriously. The fact that the requested testimony would probably be embarrassing is irrelevant. If they were going to cite Executive Privilege or the 5th Amendment as a reason for not answering a particular question, fine, so be it. But I don't think it should ever be appropriate to refuse a subpoena out of hand.
 
Cordelier said:
Holder (H Res 711, June 28, 2012) and Lerner (H Res 574, May 7, 2014) were both found to be in Contempt of Congress. While I realize that these were both largely partisan votes, nevertheless, the determinations of Congress must be taken seriously. The fact that the requested testimony would probably be embarrassing is irrelevant. If they were going to cite Executive Privilege or the 5th Amendment as a reason for not answering a particular question, fine, so be it. But I don't think it should ever be appropriate to refuse a subpoena out of hand.
Click to expand...

They did cite executive privilege as a basis for not releasing certain documents. Where did you get the idea that they didn't? And the operative word here of course is "certain," since the Obama administration did not reject the authority of the House as an oversight institution.

Every attempt to create a false equivalency here will fail.
 
Cardinal said:
The Obama administration ultimately acquiesced to all of the subpoenas. Now, they did fight certain subpoenas, which points to a rather hefty difference in one very important regard: the Obama administration fought certain subpoenas on material grounds, but did not reject the authority of the House altogether.

Your false equivalency attempt fails.
Click to expand...

LOL

You are so full partisan BS, I could scoop it from under your hat.
 
Cardinal said:
They did cite executive privilege as a basis for not releasing certain documents. Where did you get the idea that they didn't? And the operative word here of course is "certain," since the Obama administration did not reject the authority of the House as an oversight institution.

Every attempt to create a false equivalency here will fail.
Click to expand...

Come on, Cardinal.... I realize Darrell Issa was (and probably still is) a professional pain in the ass - that's how he got in Government Oversight in the first place. But you know as well as I do that Holder responded in kind.... This whole tug of war of issuing subpoenas and then responding partially (or not at all) had been going on for over a year by the time he got his contempt citation.

Was it as bad as what the Trump Administration is doing? No, obviously not.... Holder at least turned up to testify. But that's still no excuse - he should never have let it fester for as long as he did. I don't like Issa, but I don't blame him for wanting to turn over every stone and being justifiably upset when he was obstructed from doing so. Operation Fast and Furious was a lame-brained exercise from the start... and I realize that it started during the Bush Administration - but I blame Holder for not shutting it down as soon as he found out about it. He should have followed Kennedy's example with the Bay of Pigs.... he inherited a lame-brained plan, didn't do anything to stop it, and then it blew up in his face. Accept the responsibility, be open about your complicity, and then move on.
 
Cordelier said:
Come on, Cardinal.... I realize Darrell Issa was (and probably still is) a professional pain in the ass - that's how he got in Government Oversight in the first place. But you know as well as I do that Holder responded in kind.... This whole tug of war of issuing subpoenas and then responding partially (or not at all) had been going on for over a year by the time he got his contempt citation.

Was it as bad as what the Trump Administration is doing? No, obviously not.... Holder at least turned up to testify. But that's still no excuse - he should never have let it fester for as long as he did. I don't like Issa, but I don't blame him for wanting to turn over every stone and being justifiably upset when he was obstructed from doing so. Operation Fast and Furious was a lame-brained exercise from the start... and I realize that it started during the Bush Administration - but I blame Holder for not shutting it down as soon as he found out about it. He should have followed Kennedy's example with the Bay of Pigs.... he inherited a lame-brained plan, didn't do anything to stop it, and then it blew up in his face. Accept the responsibility, be open about your complicity, and then move on.
Click to expand...

The White House always squabbles with Congress where subpoenas are concerned. What the White House does not do is blanket-reject the authority of Congress in its oversight authority, which is what's happening here.

You said that the Obama admin should have at least used executive privilege in rejecting certain subpoenas. They did.

Your false equivalency position is ridiculous.
 
Cardinal said:
The White House always squabbles with Congress where subpoenas are concerned. What the White House does not do is blanket-reject the authority of Congress in its oversight authority, which is what's happening here.

You said that the Obama admin should have at least used executive privilege in rejecting certain subpoenas. They did.

Your false equivalency position is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Ah, key distinction there.... if President Obama had asserted Executive Privilege at or before the deadline for subpoena compliance (Oct. 25, 2011), you'd have a point.... but instead he waited until June 20, 2012 when the situation had escalated to a contempt vote. In the eight month interval between those dates, Holder was in material contempt.

Secondly, the assertion of Executive Privilege was illegitimate, as the Courts have since determined.
 
Cordelier said:
Ah, key distinction there.... if President Obama had asserted Executive Privilege at or before the deadline for subpoena compliance (Oct. 25, 2011), you'd have a point.... but instead he waited until June 20, 2012 when the situation had escalated to a contempt vote. In the eight month interval between those dates, Holder was in material contempt.

Secondly, the assertion of Executive Privilege was illegitimate, as the Courts have since determined.
Click to expand...

You're moving the goal posts. First you said that Holder should have asserted executive privilege; now you're saying that he did, but it was illegitimate.

I notice that you're also completely ignoring the point that Trump, unlike Obama, is rejecting Congressional oversight altogether, which of course Obama did not do.

You're embarrassing yourself...and for what?
 
Cardinal said:
You're moving the goal posts. First you said that Holder should have asserted executive privilege; now you're saying that he did, but it was illegitimate.

I notice that you're also completely ignoring the point that Trump, unlike Obama, is rejecting Congressional oversight altogether, which of course Obama did not do.

You're embarrassing yourself...and for what?
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying at all.... I'm saying that it's pretty obvious to all that there was no valid claim of Executive Privilege.... if there were, President Obama would have made it on Oct. 25. He didn't want to do that if he didn't have to.... he hoped to "game it out" and have Holder play "hide and seek" with Issa instead. It was a bull**** move.... just like what Trump is doing now.

I'm calling out both of them.... but more so Trump.
 
Cordelier said:
That's not what I'm saying at all.... I'm saying that it's pretty obvious to all that there was no valid claim of Executive Privilege.... if there were, President Obama would have made it on Oct. 25. He didn't want to do that if he didn't have to.... he hoped to "game it out" and have Holder play "hide and seek" with Issa instead. It was a bull**** move.... just like what Trump is doing now.

I'm calling out both of them.... but more so Trump.
Click to expand...

I notice that you're also completely ignoring the point that Trump, unlike Obama, is rejecting Congressional oversight altogether, which of course Obama did not do.
 
Cardinal said:
I notice that you're also completely ignoring the point that Trump, unlike Obama, is rejecting Congressional oversight altogether, which of course Obama did not do.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. Of course, you could also argue that at least Trump is open about the fact that he's a prick.... with Obama, he smiled and acted like we was cooperating with you... but he really wasn't. Which is worse? I say damn'em both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom