CNN: "Subpoenas are coming "soon" from Jan. 6 select committee, panel chair says"

[grumpyduck]

Chair Bennie Thompson told CNN that the select committee will “soon” issue subpoenas, but he declined to say who would be targeted.

He said the panel won’t resort to writing letters for voluntary information — and will instead go straight to subpoenas.

“Letters just lengthen the time. We just want to get it all done,” he told CNN off camera.

Thompson also said they plan to meet with Attorney General Merrick Garland soon because they want access to all relevant data. He added they would seek information gathered by impeachment investigators about the Jan. 6 attack.

Good. Screw the letters. Go right for the subpoenas.

And I hope they have plans for what to do about those who ignore them.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. As Wilford Brimley Said In "Absence Of Malice"...

..."Wonderful thing, subpoenas."
I watch that whole movie just to see that climax when Wilford enters the movie!!!

[Best_man23]

8. Subpoenees!

Loved the way he phrased it in Absence of Malice.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. "Don't Get Too Smart."

"I'm pretty smart mahself!"
Newman: "Everyone in the room is smart....And Theresa Perons is dead. Who do I see about that?"
As you can tell, I've watched that scene many times!!!

[secondwind]

40. 😂😂

[Grumpy Old Guy]

46. He was great in The China Syndrome.

He basically stole that movie from the stars.

[Dream Girl]

28. Isn't he the oatmeal grandpa? I didn't know he was in that movie.

[ProfessorGAC]

32. Yep, That's Him

He was probably best known for Cocoon.
In AoM, he plays a big shot from the Justice Department who comes in near the end to find out what the heck is going on. He's probably only in the movie for 15 minutes.
His performance is fantastic!

[lagomorph777]

35. Yes, and his role in that movie is one memorable quote after another.

[hookaleft]

2. "And I hope they have plans for what to do about those who ignore them."

What are they going to do when the subjects refuse. That is what I want to know.

[grumpyduck]

5. I want to believe

Pelosi et al already have something in mind. Just like McCarthy appointing those assholes to the committee wasn't a surprise to them.

It almost looks like like the Rethugs are playing checkers and Pelosi is playing chess.

[wnylib]

26. Constitutional options include

a charge of Contempt of Congress, arrest by the sergeant-at-arms and delivery to the House to testify, prison time from one month to one year, a fine between $100 and $100,000.

There are specific procedures to follow at each step. The SC has already ruled on Congressional authority to do this.

[grumpyduck]

38. Woooo!!!!

And I'll bet Nancy isn't afraid to use them if push comes to shove.

[wnylib]

41. Agree. She will do it if necessary.

I just heard Adam Schiff on NPR's All Things Considered. He said they are starting with documents, some of which are being delivered by AG Garland from the second impeachment investigation. When asked, Schiff said that he is willing to subpoena anyone who can provide answers on who organized the Capitol assault, who backed it with money, why it took so long for the National Guard to respond, and if any people in government were involved. He also said that includes members of Congress, members of the previous administration, and even TFG, if necessary.

[calimary]

42. Sure hope so!

I have lots of faith in Nancy Pelosi doing the right thing. Plenty of faith.

Expecting that weasel Crybaby Kevin do do the right thing? Hell, I wouldn’t even believe he could tell his right hand from his left hand.

[TheRickles]

55. Thanks for listing the options. I'll take what's behind Door #2, Monty.

[brooklynite]

6. Last time I checked, Joe Biden ran the Executive Branch...

The reason Trump officials couldn't be subpoenaed is that the legal authorities wouldn't enforce them.

[Javaman]

11. I think they are going to follow up with a jail time thread

I'm getting the feeling that the committee has no fucks to give.

[orangecrush]

16. THIS

[Elessar Zappa]

24. It's not Trump's government anymore.

The DOJ will enforce subpoenas.

[yonder]

3. Hope one or two have Gym's name on them.

[bearsfootball516]

4. Let's hope these have teeth.

For the last four years, every time a Republican was subpoenaed, they'd just ignore it and nothing would happen.

[SoCalDavidS]

7. That's What I Expect

Unless & Until I see otherwise.

I anticipate some strongly worded letters, and a lot of complaining in the media.

[wnylib]

27. This committee isn't messing around.

I expect full enforcement. See my #26 on the options the committee has.

[SoCalDavidS]

33. I Don't Expect Full Enforcement

I DO expect many of those subpoenaed to avoid appearing. We'll see if any of the things you mentioned really happen at that point. I doubt it.

[wnylib]

52. Oh ye of little faith. Dems have

the WH, Congress, and a new AG. I have faith in the committee and its commitment to get to the bottom of this. I have faith in their determination to hold people accountable and their willingness to enforce subpoenas with the constitutionally legal tools that they have - arrest, imprisonment, and fines. These committee members were there on Jan 6. They feared for their lives. They have the deep commitment of empowered former victims.

[Deuxcents]

10. I agree

Enforcement is key. No bs now.

[Elessar Zappa]

25. That's because Barr was head of DOJ.

Things are different now.

[Sneederbunk]

9. Mo Brooks?

[ffr]

12. Let's roll

Let justice be swift and decisive!

[BumRushDaShow]

14. I doubt any from Congress will be subpoenaed (at least early on)

They will most likely bring in some of the same people who we saw testify previously - the (former) heads of the Capitol Police, D.C. Metro Police, and both Sergeants-at-Arms (Senate & House), along with whoever was in the chain of command in DOD who were responsible for fucking around to reject and then delay the National Guard requests for several hours (even when the D.C. & VA NGs were suited up, on the buses, and ready to go once they got the go-ahead).

I.e., I expect they will initially look at the lapses in security.

Whether they actually delve into who among their colleagues were "giving tours" a day or so before this, is another thing altogether and they might have the excuse that criminal investigations are still "on-going", and they wouldn't be able to broach that subject (yet).

[Mr.Bill]

44. I want to hear from people at the Pentagon

who held up the National Guard response. I want to see where that leads.

[crickets]

47. 👆👆👆

[Delmette2.0]

45. And just in case submit a list of potential witnesses.

There is a list of over 500 arrested who can be included and it put to the media. If the Repugs think even that of 5-10 are actually called, there are at least that many who are cooperating with DOJ.

[ananda]

15. Yup, post haste. Good!

!!!

[AllaN01Bear]

17. gonna get ya , get ya.

[lark]

18. Subpoena deniers, cool their butts in jail for awhile.

Come on Garland, show us that you will back Democracy and don't mollycoddle seditionists/traitors.

[wnylib]

29. The enforcement procedures are

up to the committee, the House, the sergeant-at-arms, and then the US attorney for DC, who is required to call a grand jury.

[lark]

31. Dems have to play tough or they will get no information.

Repugs will play tough on this, it worked before so what do they have to lose will probably be their thought process and they will refuse. I will be shocked if any r's cooperate unless they know they will face a heavy penalty - jail!

[wnylib]

50. The law for refusing a subpoena

to Congress provides for arrest by the sergeant at arms and delivery to Congress for testimony. Also provides for a prison term of not less than one month and not more than one year. Plus a fine of not less than $100 or more than $100,000.

SCOTUS has ruled that Congress has this authority. It has been used many times in the past.

[lark]

51. I fear this SCOTUS.

They are so RW. They do want to APPEAR legitimate, at least most do - but other than the fraud charge & ACA they have been totally in league with the RW'ers. Handmaiden has already said she doesn't recognize precedent, unless it's a super precedent disputed by no one. Which means she doesnt recognize Roe as having standing and is totally not trustworthy.

[wnylib]

53. You mean the same SC that refused to

back TFG's election fraud claims?

I don't like them, either, but they do have a record of saying no to him.

[lark]

54. They have given him everything except that.

They don't want to be seen as fascist, but they are totally loyal to right wing ideology, just stop short of full on nazism. Now Alito and Thomas are straight out Nazis and wanted to hear TFG's cases and Alito actually said he'd have supported TFG. Now that was full on craziness!

Look at how they approved of Arizona's law that said the legislature could throw out any election because of "fraud" without requiring any scintilla of proof! They are our enemies, have no doubt about that. They just want to bleed us slowly, not kill the constitution outright in one fell swoop. They still are anti-worker, anti-everything but the rich and will destroy us if they can or are allowed to by conservative Dems not supporting an expansion of the court.

[lark]

49. That's trumpers for you, destroying us in so many ways by refusing to admit the truth.

None of them will answer to a subpoena, not one drumpfer - why should they? They will refuse hoping for a R Senate or House and this gets dropped. I will be shocked if anything different than this happens. Think they should go ahead, subpoena McCarthy and show his cowardice, but also subpoena all electronic records. See who drumpf was talking to, see who the congress critters were advising in their hunt for sedition and murder. That is the only thing that will blow this wide open,

[YoshidaYui]

19. Yes!!

Do it!

[Walleye]

20. Well the governor of Texas was willing to handcuff legislators

Ignoring a subpoena for this committee would certainly be more serious than not showing up at the statehouse

[MurrayDelph]

21. I'm hoping they're also talking to Garland for two other reasons

Last edited Wed Jul 28, 2021, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

1. To make sure subpoenas are enforced and expedited, especially for House members and White House personnel.

2. They don't step on prosecution's toes. We don't need them getting the Oliver North treatment.

[lagomorph777]

36. Yes to BOTH points!

[crickets]

48. Point taken. Just thinking about Ollie North still makes me see red.

eta

And if there is a conflict that precludes a subpoena, there had damned well better be a strong case that is actually pursued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, with consequences that actually come to pass.

[wryter2000]

22. Wonderful

And get the AG to agree to enforce subpoenas. Go to the person's office with a marshal with a gun on his side.

[wnylib]

30. See my #26 for the constitutional procedures.

Wikipedia has more details regarding subpoenas under Contempt of Congress.

[Wild blueberry]

23. If they don't obey the subpoenas, let the Capitol Police march them in

[wnylib]

34. That's the responsibility of

the sergeant-at-arms, who is authorized to make arrests and deliver the reluctant person to Congress.

[Dream Girl]

37. I see what you did there.

[Uncle Joe]

39. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread grumpyduck.

[Blue Owl]

43. Lock 'em the fuck UP