Antifascism

785 readers

2 users here now

A community to post acts of antifascism and other left-wing activism. Please message a mod if you would like something posted and we can tag you in the post as well.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

292

"and then they came for the socialists" (midwest.social)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm fairly certain you need something more official than a signed letter, but I'm not a lawyer.

So consult a lawyer and then if legal destroy those records

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

What is a subpoena, if not a signed letter from an agent of congress directing either testimony or production of information? Its possible this letter in itself could be considered a subpoena, since it was delivered in an official capacity. The only formalisms I'm aware of are guidelines and convention, which don't really mean anything anymore, and this letter seems to fit all the definitions I can find. I know it's a dumb question to get hung up on since obviously "talk to a lawyer" is the #1 thing to do here, but still it's an interesting question as to how legally binding an order in a form like this actually is.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

A subpoena is a court order. Courts do not equal Congress. Separation of powers, and all that.

Edit: To clarify, courts don't issue subpoenas, they sign off on them. Because this hasn't been issued as a subpoena or signed off on by a court, it's not a subpoena and cannot be construed as one. At least, within the bounds of the law. Which as we've seen don't really matter at the moment.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

~~Congress can absolutely issue subpoenas itself. Courts can rule on the legality, but they do not have to issue them on behalf of congress.~~ ty for the edit I see what you meant now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I realised my comment was woefully undercooked shortly after posting it 😅 It's worth noting though that issuance isn't the standard to be met; if the court doesn't sign off on a subpoena, it's not legally a subpoena and can't be enforced regardless of who issued it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

So I did a bit of a dive and this is what I found:

Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

So clarify with a lawyer and ensure that this action was taken under full legal authority and it likely was. I will edit my main comment to prevent the spread of misinformation

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

No need, subpoenas are obvious and in fact of they aren't obvious they aren't a subpoena. Almost every subpoena from Congress the Senate or otherwise will have some variation of "subpoena duces tecum" in the header or the phrase you are "ordered" or "commanded" to appear or provide whatever.

To Nixon https://www.justsecurity.org/61535/congress-subpoena-trump-testify/

Charles Mitchell https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/investigations/image/Pecora_MitchellSubpoena_display.htm