If this goes to subpoena time, we lose.

[Stinky The Clown]

A congressional subpoena is, in this case, as effective as a fart in a windstorm.

Who is going to enforce it? I can't think of anyone. Can you?

[stonecutter357]

1. i'm not concerned at all .

[manor321]

2. I love how people insist we do nothing

It's like people don't give a shit about the rule of law!

They MUST subpoena if it comes to that. There is no choice.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. "I love how people insist we do nothing"

That's what you got out pf the OP?

[dawg day]

3. The federal court enforces these.

That's what judges are for.

From Wikipedia:

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court.

Still the precedent... the executive branch must respond.

[DontBooVote]

4. Were there subpoenas that were ignored by the Little Bush admin? What was done about that?

[Igel]

12. It gets worse.

Part of the argument for redacting it is the DC court rules over where grand jury testimony can and cannot be shared.

It would be the DC court deciding if a subpoena requiring that Barr violate the court's standing rules is valid and subject to enforcement by the court. Keeping in mind that if Barr ignored the DC court, the DC court would be responsible for enforcing the rule.

Moreover, part of the argument is to ensure that other investigations and possibly federal court cases aren't compromised.

Then there are any national security concerns.

And whether or not others are involved, given the long-standing DOJ policy that people investigated who are not indicted but on whom dirt is dug up along the way still have some expectation of privacy.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. The federal court?

You mean the one McConnell is building at breakneck speed? Or the Kavanaugh Gorsuck Supremes?

[watoos]

5. April 2nd file the subpoena

We have precedence to win it in court.
Of course it can be enforced.

[Socal31]

6. Yep.

Holder didn't give a damn about subpoenas for a certain ATF scandal.

[dumbcat]

7. You're not supposed to bring that up

or the Contempt of Congress thingy.

[okaawhatever]

9. The contempt of congress charge was b.s. the IG cleared him of any wrongdoing and the Repubs lost in

court. Holder was forced to turn over some documents that weren't related to ongoing investigations, but he had offered more than that already.


A federal judge has declined a House committee's bid to have Attorney General Eric Holder held in contempt of court — and perhaps even jailed — for failing to turn over documents related to the Justice Department' s response to Operation Fast and Furious.

snip

Jackson called the House contempt motion "entirely unnecessary" and said it was evident that she was considering the government's motion to lift her prior order. "Under those circumstances, the Court finds no basis to hold defendant in contempt," she wrote.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/10/judge-declines-to-hold-holder-in-contempt-196650

[okaawhatever]

10. Yes he did, but he wouldn't hand over all the documents they wanted and a judge sided with him. Nice

try. Great GOP talking point.

[Socal31]

11. Oh geez.

Perfectly relevant data point for a AG going up against Congressional subpoenas.

Your attempt to intimidate with poorly disguised accusations won't work on me.

[FakeNoose]

8. Invite Robert Mueller to the House Intelligence Committee hearing next Tuesday

... and ask him to bring a fresh copy of his report.

[kentuck]

14. I think it actually needs to go to court.

We need another voice in this debate.