ALL of the Republicans supoenaed in the Randi Duke Cunningham case say they WON'T comply

[debbierlus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_go_co/lawmakers_supoenaed

What, are they going to claim, some sort of Congressional privillege? Who the FCK do they think they are?

Slime.

[Beelzebud]

1. If that were you or me, we'd be sitting in jail.

[debbierlus]

4. Only 'elected' government officials aren't subject to the law

[babylonsister]

2. Add 4 Dems to your wrath:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1832784

[debbierlus]

Omg. Added to my wrath

[Supersedeas]

13. a lil coderie of Def Contractor shills??

[jgraz]

3. Congress needs to start throwing some people in jail

As long as they let Rice, Miers, Bolten and Rove ignore subpoenas, they send the message that these things are some sort of polite request to stop by for a chat.

[L. Coyote]

5. WOW. This could become the Circus of Undoing for lots of politicos.

You think Ted Stevens was a bad boy? You have not seen bad boys yet.
It is time to take it up a notch, into the "millions of dollars in bribes" category.

[TahitiNut]

6. Hey! They're lawMAKERS, not law-abiders.

:eyes:

[drm604]

7. This is the result of the open defiance of Congress by the Bush administration.

That kind of cavalier attitude towards the law from the very top can cause a breakdown of the entire system. If Congress can be defied, then why cooperate with a mere court?

[KansDem]

8. Taser™ them!

You think I'm ****ing kidding, don't' you?

Why not?

If some DUers can condone the Tasering™ of a university student because he didn't comply with police requests to leave a room, then why are we ****ing around with these Republicans? Issue them their subpoenas requesting their appearance before the investigative committee and if they don't comply, Taser™ them until they do. It's the way its done on college campuses so why not in Congress?

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. They all think they are above the law! Here's some of the article:

13 lawmakers subpoenaed in bribery trial

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer 32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt and 11 other members of Congress have been subpoenaed to testify in the trial of a defense contractor charged with bribing jailed former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

All of the lawmakers said they do not intend to comply with the subpoenas.

The subpoenas were sought by attorneys for contractor Brent Wilkes, who faces a trial in San Diego later this year on more than 30 counts of bribery, fraud, money laundering and conspiracy in connection with his relationship with Cunningham.

Cunningham, a Republican who represented a California district in Congress, is serving an eight-year prison after pleading guilty in 2005 to taking $2.4 million in bribes from Wilkes and others in exchange for millions of dollars in government contracts. As part of his plea deal, Cunningham agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

Wilkes' attorney, Mark Geragos, did not immediately return messages Tuesday. Some lawmakers declined comment while others issued statements saying they didn't know why they had been subpoenaed and had no information to provide.

"Despite requests for further information from the law firm, we do not know why Mr. Blunt has been issued this subpoena. We have absolutely no information," said Blunt spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier.

"The House counsel has determined that compliance with this subpoena is inconsistent with House rules," she added.

"This subpoena is a mystery," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who represents a district near Cunningham's. "I have no knowledge of information pertaining to the charges pending against Mr. Wilkes that would aid either the defense or the prosecution in this case."

In addition to Issa, Blunt, R-Mo., and Hastert, R-Ill., Wilkes' attorneys are seeking testimony from:<snip>

[hang a left]

16. Just one minor correction in the story.

Geragos isn't Wilkes attorney any longer. Could be why he isn't returning phone messages.

[liberalmuse]

10. WTF, kick them all out of their seats--the Dems, too!

This is disgraceful. Why are we paying their salaries if they will not comply with the law? Boot the fuckers out! And my head and gut were ready to explode yesterday with all the B.S., including that disgusting Republican pedophile story which is still making me nauseous.

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. This is why the very first question

the AG designate needs to answer is: Will you make subpoenas answerable or can they continue to be ignored?

[Jim__]

12. Mark Gerragos knows how to make noise in the media.

Let them ignore the subpoenas. Let Gerragos blast it all over the media.

Go Dems '08!

[ljm2002]

14. Okay, here's what I want to have happen...

...I want some news person to speak to each one of these individuals, and ask them one question: If you can decline to respond to a subpoena, then does this not mean that any citizen in this great land of equal justice for all, can also decline to respond to a subpoena? If not, why not? Please, explain.

[Hubert Flottz]

15. If they did nothing wrong what are they afraid of?

If they have nothing to hide, why would they be afraid to go to court and be sworn in under oath?

[yardwork]

17. The party of personal responsibility strikes (out) again!

[Igel]

20. Would that be the dems or the repubs?

Trick question.

It's both.

[yardwork]

22. I beg your pardon? I haven't heard of any Democrats refusing subpoenas lately.

I was making a comment about how many Republicans are shirking personal responsibility these days, despite their party's much-vaunted platform.

I don't think I understand your comment.

[hang a left]

18. They are probably being subpoenaed for depositions.

Hopefully they have to go through the normal process and ask a judge to quash for whatever their reasons might be.

I think the subpoenas are threats perhaps a couple of Congressmen that are in neck deep. I think that the Dems being subpoenaed are being so for documents since they all head the committees now.

[kineneb]

19. To jail with them. Now. n/t

[Igel]

21. Yes, but isn't that a violation of Grice?

I mean, if I ask to borrow $8 from you and you say you have $5, yours is a true statement even if you really have $8 in your pocket.

All the repubs are refusing to comply. But then again, that's not saying everything that's relevant. "All of the lawmakers said they do not intend to comply with the subpoenas."

Nor does it address the "why" of non-compliance. "'The House counsel has determined that compliance with this subpoena is inconsistent with House rules,' she added."

It's an issue of separation of powers and of legislative privilege. It's what made repubs defend Democrat Jefferson, and dems defend some republican a month or two ago. There's nothing like an outside threat to make warring members of a tribe--whether a traditional tribe, a religious group, or a group in power--pull together.

In this case, it's a question as to what papers the legislative privilege granted in the US Constitution actually covers--with each side always maximizing its power and minimizing the other's. (As though only the Executive plays these games.)

In this case, I think that the legislators, from whichever party, will lose, at least mostly ... as long as the documents requested do not involve legislation. But I think that if the legislators refuse to comply there's not much that can be done to force them to turn over the documents, because what's needed to verify any claim that they're legislative in nature would be ruled out. But I also think they need to stake out as strong a position as possible: Giving in may cede more privilege than the courts will eventually rule must be ceded.