- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Congress, the House, need to "get over" not subpoenaing witnesses re: Trump and his shenanigans
I keep hearing House members and staffers note that they prefer to have witnesses appear voluntarily rather than by subpoenaing them. WTF for? This matter has been going on for long enough now that, IMO, Congress needs to move with all deliberate haste and on a clear schedule, pressing charges for contempt of Congress, possibly incarcerating folks, as needed when folks rebuke a subpoena.
I mean, really. We've already watched one fiasco whereby the Acting AG messed around for a month or more without responding to a request for his appearance before a House committee. This "dicking around" with potential witnesses from whom the House seeks input is ridiculous. It's the House of Representatives of the United States of America. If they want information, it's every citizen's duty to show the hell up and provide it. Period.
If the COO or VP of "something or other" in your company summoned you to his office, what would you do? You show up and answer the questions posed. If a court summons you, are you going to not show up and risk a bench warrant for your arrest being issued? Maybe you would; I damn sure wouldn't. Similarly, were I summoned before a Congressional committee, I'd appear; furthermore, I'd adjust my schedule to appear on Congress' timetable.
House members, committee chairmen know full and well what witnesses will likely resist a simple invitation; thus they ought to just skip the niceties and subpoena them.
I keep hearing House members and staffers note that they prefer to have witnesses appear voluntarily rather than by subpoenaing them. WTF for? This matter has been going on for long enough now that, IMO, Congress needs to move with all deliberate haste and on a clear schedule, pressing charges for contempt of Congress, possibly incarcerating folks, as needed when folks rebuke a subpoena.
- A subpoena defines a schedule and makes clear a temporal path for making timely progress toward obtaining testimony and resolving the matter as much as it can be..
- The people whom Congress would subpoena have had some two years or more to think about, and in some instances, forget, what they did. There's no need to give them more time.
- A subpoena gets straight to the point -- show the hell up or, if you don't appear as ordered, we'll take punitive contempt of Congress action against you -- and avoids the month or more delays with folks talking about getting "round tuits" and whatever other BS one may conjure about why one, when asked for voluntary compliance, can't proffer a date.
I mean, really. We've already watched one fiasco whereby the Acting AG messed around for a month or more without responding to a request for his appearance before a House committee. This "dicking around" with potential witnesses from whom the House seeks input is ridiculous. It's the House of Representatives of the United States of America. If they want information, it's every citizen's duty to show the hell up and provide it. Period.
If the COO or VP of "something or other" in your company summoned you to his office, what would you do? You show up and answer the questions posed. If a court summons you, are you going to not show up and risk a bench warrant for your arrest being issued? Maybe you would; I damn sure wouldn't. Similarly, were I summoned before a Congressional committee, I'd appear; furthermore, I'd adjust my schedule to appear on Congress' timetable.
House members, committee chairmen know full and well what witnesses will likely resist a simple invitation; thus they ought to just skip the niceties and subpoena them.