QUESTION: How Can ANY Public Official, Namely Condi, Refuse a Subpoena? (Laywers Welcome to Comment)

[The Cleaner]

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s probe into prewar intelligence has again postponed a hearing, scheduled for today, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who refuses to testify publicly despite a panel subpoena.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rebuffed-by-rice-hadley-house-panel-tracks-down-witnesses-for-iraq-probe-2007-06-19.html

One would guess there's a punishment for this...does anyone know what that might be? And how is Rice able to get away with it?

I don't think I've seen such arrogance and disregard for the law in my life!

:wtf:

[zanne]

1. It's like the wild, wild West...

There's no law enforcement.

[Deep13]

2. My understanding is that one can only refuse...

...if the person is outside of the issuing court's territorial jurisdiction. I don't really know, though. We subpeona officials all the time: mostly cops and forensic people. The remedy for a wrongfully issued subpeona is to appear in court and request that it be "quashed." For example, in one case, the defense subpeonaed the local misdemeanor judge. The judge came to felony court as ordered, but had it quashed because the defense (a guy who insisted on being pro se) wanted to ask him about things irrelevant to the case.

[HamdenRice]

3. Ultimately, she can't but the appeals

can drag out a long time. In other words, it's possible to contest the validity of the subpoena and in the meantime, she won't testify. Also, eventually it's possible the unitary-executive influenced SCOTUS might come up with an executive privelege argument to quash the subpoena.

[MiniMe]

4. The house can cite her for contempt of congress

That is about it. Of course, you or I would have a warrant our for our arrest and be thrown in jail.

[chelaque liberal]

5. How can anyone-public official or not-refuse a subpoena?

[helderheid]

6. This has been bothering me to no end. I'd like Keith to address it on his show - can you imagine if

we refused one?

[On the Road]

7. How is Contempt of Congress Handled?

Is there a court filing of some kind? Or, as Al Gore said, is it an area in which there is "no controlling legal authority."

[onenote]

13. Much information here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/contempt-of-congress

[Gidney N Cloyd]

8. Was the subpeona actually served? The article doesn't specify.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. How can a subpoena be enforced?

Those holding Constitutional office (members of Congress, president, vice-president and the judges of the Supreme Court) are immune from arrest during the course of their Constitutional duties; that immunity is necessary to prevent politically motivated interference with government business. By tradition (and, I think, judicial ruling) this immunity is extended to members of the Cabinet as well. As a result, it is not possible to arrest Rice or any other cabinet member and hold them in contempt of Congress.

The only possible way to get her to testify against her will is for the House to impeach her (yes, Cabinet members can be impeached) and the Senate to convict on those articles of impeachment. At that point, she is no longer Secretary of State and can be arrested. But will Congress have the gonads to impeach Rice? I ain't holding my breath.

[onenote]

14. cabinet members can be held in contempt of congress

You are correct that there is an issue as to whether criminal sanctions can be imposed on a cabinet-level official for contempt of congress, or whether the only action that can be taken is impeachment. But cabinet officials can be cited for contempt of congress. In fact, congressional committees (or subcommittees) have voted out contempt citations against cabinet level officials on several occasions (Kissinger, Califano, Watt, Reno, to name a few).

Typically, after a vote at the subcommittee and/or full committee level to cite an official for contempt, the matter ends up being resolved before it goes further.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. But does a citation have any teeth?

My point is that a Cabinet member can laugh at any citation for contempt. Other than shaking their collective finger, Congress can not do squat as long as the person is immune from arrest.

[onenote]

17. well, since every time it has happened, the matter has been resolved

through compliance or substantial compliance, it would seem to mean something

[atreides1]

15. But will Congress have the gonads to impeach Rice?

Hell they don't have the gonads to impeach Gonzo, and he's a much better target then Rice!

[Bandit]

20. Well we are about to find out if that immunity extends to ex-officials as well

Even if that is the case and Administration appointees are immune from prosecution, that supposedly ends after they leave their position. Bush* is saying it carries over forever. Harriet Meyers and Taylor have been subpoened and Bush* is saying they don't have to acknowledge them. That would mean that even after Impeachment Administration officials would still retain their immunity. It will be interesting to see how the Extreme Court deals with that issue. It would make Impeachment irrelevent..

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Then Meyers and Taylor (and Rumsfeld, why not?) should be arrested

until they are willing to cooperate with the federal investigation. The Court can not rule until they have something to rule on, so issue those warrants.

[bigtree]

10. executive privilege would be the dodge, but there are ways to get them to comply

here's one already tried and successful:

Duke Law Journal on the republicans' subpoena of Whitewater notes . . .

Whitewater Notes

In 1995, the Special Senate Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters (the Senate Whitewater Committee) issued a subpoena for certain documents. The White House announced that it would withhold material about a November 5, 1993, meeting involving senior presidential aides and private lawyers, on the ground that the documents were protected by the lawyer-client privilege and executive privilege. William Kennedy, who at the time was an associate White House counsel, took extensive notes at the meeting. President Clinton said that he believed "the president ought to have a right to have a confidential conversation with his minister, his doctor, his lawyer." That argument would apply if a president met with his private lawyer, but the issue was complicated by the presence of government lawyers at the meeting.

Within a few days, the White House offered to turn over the Kennedy notes if the committee agreed that the meeting was privileged. The committee refused because it learned of other meetings attended by White House officials and private attorneys. Unable to reach an acceptable compromise, the committee voted to send the issue to the Senate floor and from there to federal district court. On December 20, 1995, the Senate began consideration of a resolution directing the Senate Legal Counsel to bring a civil action to enforce the subpoena. The resolution invoked a special statute regarding the authority of the Senate Legal Counsel to sue for subpoena enforcement orders. In a letter on that same day to the committee, White House Special Counsel Jane Sherburne described various options, stating: "We have said all along that we are prepared to make the notes public."The resolution passed the Senate by a vote of fifty-one to forty-five. On the following day, the White House agreed to give the notes to the Senate Whitewater Committee.

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?52+Duke+L.+J.+323

[H2O Man]

11. Yes.

She can. The congress has the power to subpoena those officials whom they have oversight on at most any time. Thus, in Rice's current position, she is clearly subject to a congressional subpoena. However, in terms of an attempt to force her to testify regarding her actions as NSA to Bush, it is not the same. The federal courts will not likely rule in favor of congress, unless the congress takes the single route that provides them with the greatest authority to subpoena. And that is for an investigation relating to impeachment. Members of congress are fully aware of that, and they are also aware that the general public is unaware of this. Hence they can pretend to do the right thing, when in fact they know very well that their subpoena is not worth the paper it is printed on.

[bigtree]

18. there's that argument that legislators are trying to bullshit us

hiding the fact that an impeachment could compel testimony, "pretending to do the right thing"

It may well be that some expect the subpoenas to suffice, but they have the ability, as has been shown in the past, to force testimony by using their offices pressure the administration into compliance. To suggest that Conyers, for instance, is just going through the motions without expecting that he could force testimony, is a stretch. Where, other than in his reluctance to get behind any specific impeachment effort, has he shown ANY capitulation to the administration?

Rather than acting like all Congress has at their disposal is the neat trick of impeachment, why not acknowledge that White House officials have, in the past been made subject to questioning through congressional pressure without resorting to the extraordinary remedy of attempting to remove someone from office?

For instance, many of the principals now arguing against the subpoenas are on record as pressuring the Clinton White House to comply with their own demands for testimony related to the Starr investigation. With the steady revelation of more and more proof that a crime has occurred, the political pressure could/should allow our Democratic majority to legislate a response to the stonewalling and elevate the argument to the point where the administration is politically unable to sustain their objections.

[H2O Man]

22. One good reason

is because the courts have ruled on these issues. It's fairly clear, and well-documented.

[ThomWV]

12. Correct Me If I'm Wrong But Isn't Anyone Who Has Been Confirmed By The Senate Obliged ...

To respond to the call from the Congress at any time?

[Bitwit1234]

19. President Clinton was MADE to testify under oath

in the Paula Jones thing, why can't they compel rice to.