can't you just use the Eric Holder precedent? I'm not a legal expert, but how can one guy ignore it and nothing happens, but the other guys has to comply with congress who isn't part of the judicial branch in a completely illegitimate "trial"?
none of this shit makes any sense, but how would a legal expert interpret what's going on here?
As far as I know (and I checked) the US Constitution does not grant Congress subpoena powers. I dug into it a little after a back-and-forth I had here last week and came up with . Here's a snippet:
Although these powers are not directly stated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that they are implicit as an essential legislative power held by Congress.
Justice Willis Van Devanter made perhaps the most famous statement of these powers in McGrain v. Daugherty, a 1927 Supreme Court decision about Mally S. Daugherty, the brother of former Attorney General Harry Daugherty. A select Senate committee issued a subpoena for Daugherty to testify and to also surrender records from an Ohio bank. When Daugherty refused to comply after a second subpoena, the Senate passed a resolution issuing a warrant and authorizing a Senate deputy to take Daugherty into custody. Daugherty filed a habeas petition against his detention. A lower court ruled that the Senate exceeded its powers by detaining Daugherty, freeing him. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, holding that under the Constitution, Congress has the power to compel witnesses and testimony “to obtain information in aid of the legislative function.”
That last bit is the key point. Barr refused to comply with a subpoena because it didn't deal with legislation. Holder just said, "fuck you" and nothing happened to him. I believe he was also found to be non guilty of any crimes by the DOJ. (Of course he was.)
good stuff, thank you Professor
(post is archived)