babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 10:29 PM
Original message |
I need a lawyer. If subpoenas are continually stonewalled, what can be |
|
done? What would be the next step? Keep in mind the DoJ is possibly a non-entity at this point.
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 10:35 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The person subpoenaed would be in contempt of congreess, and |
|
be arrested and carted off. If the person happens to be the AG...Gonzo...I suspect the warrant would be turned over to the Inspector General at the DOJ.
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Wrong answer if the DoJ is complicit. Will they act? I'm thinking Rice, |
|
Gonzo, only those supposedly smart people who are glued to the dim one for whatever reason. I understand Gonzo's reasoning, but not Rice-at all.
|
Kagemusha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 10:38 PM
Response to Original message |
2. There's such a thing as asking a court to see that the subpoena is enforced. |
|
Since congress does not command the DoJ directly, if the DoJ drags its feet Congress could simply go to a judge, show that it is a valid subpoena, and the judge starts the sort of process that a judge starts: demand DoJ people show up to explain why they're not following the law. There'd then be rulings, appeals, and the Supreme Court gets to say the obvious: a valid congressional subpoena must be followed in an America where the rule of law prevails.
Then the administration either folds or breaks the rule of law that has sustained the Republic since its founding.
|
reichstag911
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. The same "rule of law"... |
|
...they've been disregarding since they took office? Nah, they'd never do that. :sarcasm:
|
Kagemusha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
12. Sneaking past vs. open defiance is a big difference. |
|
I mean open not as in, 'good people may disagree' but, 'the Supreme Court flatly disagrees but we don't care'. They do not want to go there.
But, I expected your response. I just differentiate between bad law and no law.
|
reichstag911
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jun-10-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
...that Bush's admission of the warrantless NSA program is tantamount to open defiance, especially when one considers that just a few months earlier, he'd made a point of explicitly stating that court orders were necessary and still being obtained for such surveillance. He knew the law, claimed to be following it, but ultimately admitted that he'd been lying about following it. If that doesn't constitute open defiance, I'm not sure what does. :shrug:
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
7. Thanks. Sounds like an exhaustive process, and makes me wonder |
|
how the SC would rule given our current climate. I'd like to think I could trust them, but I don't.
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 10:41 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Check this link. They answer your question much better than I could. |
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
9. Thanks for that. So they're playing a dangerous game now. |
|
Who will blink first? I think the Dems have nothing to lose by calling them on their b.s.
|
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 10:43 PM
Response to Original message |
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. And that means what? It doesn't matter? Not good enough. nt |
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. Google is your friend. |
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
Edited on Fri Jun-08-07 11:23 PM by babylonsister
|
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. I was fine with "pound sand" - lol - was cool to look up something I didn't know. |
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-08-07 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. Good. I know all about google, so you learned something tonight. nt |
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jun-10-07 08:48 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Oddly enough, modern courts don't want to do it, and tend to blame the litigant.
There is a "rot from the top" effect - Chimpy's minions ignoring subpoenas gets the average American thinking they can do that, too.
It's all about the contempt for the rule of law that starts at the top.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 08:32 AM
Response to Original message |