10-09-2019, 04:35 PM
Someone asked me today about why folks related to the admin can ignore subpoenas when normal folks who get subpoenaed by a court cannot. Here is why:
A Congressional subpoena is different that a judicial subpoena. The Congressional subpoena has to meet three criteria: 1) a committee's investigation has to be authorized; 2) the investigation must pursue a valid legislative purpose; 3) the inquiry has to be pertinent to the area of investigation.
If someone ignores a Congressional subpoena, Congress has two options: 1) let it go, or 2) hold the person(s) in contempt of Congress. Traditionally, courts have not entertained motions to quash congressional subpoenas, viewing them as 'political matters'.
If someone is found in contempt of Congress, it is considered the act of obstructing the work of Congress. Contempt proceedings are very time consuming. If someone ignores a Congressional subpoena, the committee issuing a subpoena has the option of holding someone in "inherent contempt", where the issue is only examined within the committee itself rather than the whole Congress.
Part of the problem with a contempt of Congress ruling against members of the Executive Branch or others protected by them is the enforcement of the contempt charges once they are found applicable. The Sergeant-at-Arms for the House has the authority at that point to find the person(s) and bring them before Congress. However, the Sergeant-at-Arms only has a certain amount of resources, and at some point they would need to lean on the Judicial Branch to assist in enforcement.
It is possible for Congress to find persons in contempt of Congress and not enforce. This would be helpful in a situation where Congress also might be involved in an impeachment investigation (i.e. added support for the impeachment charges). Impeachment is, after all, a purely political activity.
A Congressional subpoena is different that a judicial subpoena. The Congressional subpoena has to meet three criteria: 1) a committee's investigation has to be authorized; 2) the investigation must pursue a valid legislative purpose; 3) the inquiry has to be pertinent to the area of investigation.
If someone ignores a Congressional subpoena, Congress has two options: 1) let it go, or 2) hold the person(s) in contempt of Congress. Traditionally, courts have not entertained motions to quash congressional subpoenas, viewing them as 'political matters'.
If someone is found in contempt of Congress, it is considered the act of obstructing the work of Congress. Contempt proceedings are very time consuming. If someone ignores a Congressional subpoena, the committee issuing a subpoena has the option of holding someone in "inherent contempt", where the issue is only examined within the committee itself rather than the whole Congress.
Part of the problem with a contempt of Congress ruling against members of the Executive Branch or others protected by them is the enforcement of the contempt charges once they are found applicable. The Sergeant-at-Arms for the House has the authority at that point to find the person(s) and bring them before Congress. However, the Sergeant-at-Arms only has a certain amount of resources, and at some point they would need to lean on the Judicial Branch to assist in enforcement.
It is possible for Congress to find persons in contempt of Congress and not enforce. This would be helpful in a situation where Congress also might be involved in an impeachment investigation (i.e. added support for the impeachment charges). Impeachment is, after all, a purely political activity.
![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
