from here=> [thehill.com]

Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is now authorized to subpoena twelve current and former Trump administration officials and associates as part of the committee’s sweeping probe of alleged obstruction and abuses of power by Trump and others in his inner circle.

The individuals include Trump senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former White House chief of staff John Kelly, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

The list also includes former White House aides Rick Dearborn and Rob Porter, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Jody Hunt and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, as well as Keith Davidson, the former attorney for adult-film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, and American Media Inc. executives Dylan Howard and David Pecker.

The resolution approved by the committee Thursday also authorizes Nadler to issue subpoenas for documents and testimony related to the “zero tolerance” policy for illegal border crossings, detention or short-term custody of children or migrant families, and “discussions about or offers of presidential pardons to Department of Homeland Security officials or employees.”

They should add David Dennison, John Miller, and John Barron to the list.

Executive Privilege time.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Wonder who will ignore subpoenas and who will show up with lawyers and won't answer questions.

---

Northern California Coast

Unless the House grows some cojones and starts arresting people who ignore subpoenas, this is just a waste of time. These committees are like parents who count to ten over and over, and their kids ignore them because they know nothing is going to happen.

---

What $tevie says... it's all sub, no poena. (Latin.. Under Pain..)

You’re surprised by a Democrat controlled House subpoenaing Republicans?


I have a wonderful bridge in a prime location you might be interested in.....

congratulations, you've just defended the worst regime in American history.

Quote
$tevie
Unless the House grows some cojones and starts arresting people who ignore subpoenas, this is just a waste of time. These committees are like parents who count to ten over and over, and their kids ignore them because they know nothing is going to happen.

Who's going to do the arresting? The Sergeant-at-Arms of the House? I'm pretty sure his jurisdiction limits where he can go to detain and retrieve someone... If a federal court orders the enforcement of a subpoena, do you know who gets the call to retrieve the miscreant? The U.S. Marshals, who report to:

Bill Barr, baby!

It's a nice idea, but enforcement power belongs to the executive branch.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

You shake the tree. As time wears on, more things may fall. But not if you don’t shake the tree.

Stop dreaming of silver bullets, smoking guns. This is real life. The alternative of doing nothing is just that, nothing.

Okay, maybe “arrest” is the wrong verb? They can go get the person and bring them back and hold them until they are to testify. In a hotel, not a jail cell. And DOJ doesn’t control that authority.

“The third type of contempt power—Congress’s dormant inherent contempt power—is rarely used in modern times. Inherent contempt was the mode employed by Congress to directly enforce contempt rulings under its own constitutional authority until criminal and civil contempt statutes were passed, and it remained in use into the twentieth century. Under inherent contempt proceedings, the House or Senate has its Sergeant-At-Arms, or deputy, take a person into custody for proceedings to be held in Congress.

Although these powers are not directly stated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that they are implicit as an essential legislative power held by Congress.”
[constitutioncenter.org]

I think the situation in the White House calls for more than just throwing subpoenas and praying that one of them sticks.

---

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2019 11:07AM by $tevie.

Quote
$tevie
Okay, maybe “arrest” is the wrong verb? They can go get the person and bring them back and hold them until they are to testify. In a hotel, not a jail cell. And DOJ doesn’t control that authority.

What you described is arrest, just Khashoggi-style. If you expect compliance, you'd better bring guns, and have a plan to deal with armed and often sworn security details (for high-ranking officials). It's not as simple as you're making it out to be - remember, these are people who have already decided openly to defy a federal court order.

Quote
$tevie
I think the situation in the White House calls for more than just throwing subpoenas and praying that one of them sticks.

I agree, but I also don't think the notion of sending black suburbans to retrieve cabinet secretaries for unspecified detention in Capitol Hill hotel rooms is going to be the way through this. But I'm wrong all the time, as you've pointed out, and I could easily be wrong here.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

I didn't say you were wrong all the time. I said the people who keep predicting Trump's announcements are wrong most of the time. If you are prone to predicting Trump's announcements, then fine, but I never said "you". For a person who is almost constantly calling people out for being "stupid" and "wrong" because you disagree with them, you've got awfully thin skin.

---

Quote
rjmacs
If you expect compliance, you'd better bring guns, and have a plan to deal with armed and often sworn security details (for high-ranking officials). It's not as simple as you're making it out to be - remember, these are people who have already decided openly to defy a federal court order.

I really find it hard to believe that you honestly believe that William Barr, for example, is willing to risk a long jail sentence for shooting and maybe killing the Sergeant-at-Arms. If you honestly think these people are that dangerous, then why do you think sitting on one's arse issuing subpoenas will stop them? Your paranoia isn't even consistent.

---

Quote
$tevie
I really find it hard to believe that you honestly believe that William Barr, for example, is willing to risk a long jail sentence for shooting and maybe killing the Sergeant-at-Arms. If you honestly think these people are that dangerous, then why do you think sitting on one's arse issuing subpoenas will stop them? Your paranoia isn't even consistent.

Do you think that William Barr would comply if the Sergeant-at-Arms presented him personally with a subpoena to appear before a House Committee, offering to escort the AG to a hotel suite outfitted for his use until such time as he decides to provide testimony?

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
deckeda
You shake the tree.

(And then you live another day to shake it again.)

Listen, we know compelled House testimony is a dog and pony show. Then again, Hope Hicks, who said "nothing" about her time there did reveal something I can't recall right now LOL. Point being, it was an unexpected nugget. Made the news for a day. Wheee! Worthwhile? Why not?

It's about creating an atmosphere of letting as many players know their life might not be so easy, and maybe, just maybe, one domino will fall.

And if that domino does not fall this summer, it can still fall later when next year Congress says, "Hey bud, remember when you lied to us last summer?" That's the tree, shaken. Keep pressing.