Who got served with a subpoena?

[Skidmore]

Hastert's staff person. Just read in Congress now.

And one for Derek Scott, Office Supply Clerk, Congress.

[Skidmore]

1. Kick.

Gotta leave in a couple. Any able to research this .

[helderheid]

2. wow - will have to check!

[Deb]

3. First name- Bonnie

sorry, didn't catch the last.

[Skink]

4. Was it Fitz?

[Deb]

7. No, this was a person in Hastert's office

Three letters advising the House of criminal subpoenas written and read into the House record, per Rule 8 of the House rules. I heard a total of three letters, one a Congressman ???, one from Bonnie ? and the one from the Office Supply Clerk. I don't know which court, sooo sorry I was on the phone at the time. :-(

[aquart]

9. Who are they from? WHICH investigation????

[shraby]

5. Do you have a source?

[Skidmore]

6. It was read by the reading clerk before the House in session

a few minutes ago.

[shraby]

8. Will they be posted online?

[suffragette]

10. From Office of the Clerk

http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html

5:20 P.M. -
The House received a communication from Derek Scott, Sales Clerk, Office Supply Service. Pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, Mr. Scott notified the House that he had been served with a criminal subpoena for testimony issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and that after consultation with the Office of General Counsel, he had determined that compliance with the subpoena was consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.

5:19 P.M. -
The House received a communication from Bonnie Walsh, Office of the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House. Pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, Ms. Walsh notified the House that she had been served with a criminal subpoena for testimony issued by the Circuit Court for the 16th Judicial Circuit, DeKalb County, Illinois and that after consultation with the Office of General Counsel, she had determined that compliance with the subpoena was consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.

Hmmm, so what is this about?

[Skidmore]

11. A criminal subpoena?

Sounds like this is something local back home in the district? Any way to find out more about it?