Clintons decline to testify in congressional Epstein probe, Comer to pursue contempt charges

[Oddball]

View attachment 1205518

Must Someone Comply With a Congressional Subpoena ?​

Yes. If a congressional subpoena serves a valid legislative purpose, a party must generally comply with it.
The Court also affirmed that parties are legally obligated to comply with them unless they have a valid legal reason not to.

This might include:

• Privilege: Executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege
• Fifth Amendment: Constitutional right against self-incrimination
• Invalid subpoena: Lack of legislative purpose, too broad, unduly burdensome

Is there a valid legislative purpose? Questionable
Could they claim 5th Amendment? Possibly
Has either one had Executive Privilege? Yes and the Supremes have so muddied the waters on Executive privilege, damn near anything might qualify and it extend not just to current President but future and past presidents.

What Happens If Someone Fails To Comply With a Congressional Subpoena?​

Congress has three main contempt resolution methods: criminal, civil, and inherent. It can use them to respond if someone refuses to comply with a subpoena. It may also use them for contempt acts that otherwise obstruct Congress’ legislative function.

Criminal Contempt of Congress​

The first option is for Congress to recommend criminal charges under a federal contempt statute.


This requires the full House or Senate to hold contempt proceedings. If either house decides by a majority vote to hold the person in contempt, it issues a contempt citation. The case then goes to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who’s a member of the Department of Justice (DOJ).


The citation itself has no legal consequences unless the DOJ decides to prosecute. The DOJ is part of the executive branch, and it rarely prosecutes these referrals.


In 2014, the Republican-led House held Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress. Lerner had refused to testify before a House committee about the agency’s targeting of conservative political groups. After she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights, the DOJ declined to prosecute her.

I would be surprised, if they end up testifying any sooner than Donald Trump.

Let's ask Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon about what happens if you tell congress to **** off.

 

[jknowgood]

Someone asked Trump to show up for questioning?

Trump has shown up when he was asked to. Your coward won't show because he is guilty.

 

[Marener]

Is there even any pretense as to a legislative purpose for the testimony?

 

[Marener]

Trump has shown up when he was asked to. Your coward won't show because he is guilty.

Trump legislated congressional subpoenas for years. See the Mazaars case.

You’re not very well informed.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Okay, Monica was consensual.

Even Starr didn't believe Jones or Wiley. (Although he did throw a woman in jail for not supporting Wiley's claims.)

Broaddrick's claims fall apart when you look at them.

1) She accepted an appointment from Clinton after the incident.
2) She continued to attend Clinton political events
3) She couldn't tell you the date this supposedly happened. (because Clinton's itinerary could be checked.
4) NO record of either her or Clinton ever being at that hotel
5) She swore out two affidavits saying nothing happened.

Again, this does not change my claim that one woman’s claim of rape fell short on Trump, he is perpetually deemed a rapist while MULTIPLE women accused Clinton of rape and/or assault, every woman is dismissed or smeared as opposed to Clinton getting labeled like Trump.

Clinton and Trump were once buddies and both have histories of being aggressive sexually with women.

 

[22lcidw]

Is there even any pretense as to a legislative purpose for the testimony?

So much for the love of the constitution.

 

[struth]

Is there even any pretense as to a legislative purpose for the testimony?

Yes, stronger laws against pedos

 

[JLW]

Clinton should testify. I think it is a mistake that he isn’t. He should testify how he and Trump were buddy buddy with Epstein for years. Then both sleazeballs should be held accountable for their involvement with Epstein.

 

[White 6]

Trump has shown up when he was asked to. Your coward won't show because he is guilty.

Nope.
No, Donald Trump has not appeared before a Congressional committee to be questioned. He has faced subpoenas but has often refused to comply with them.

americanoversight.org University of North Carolina at Chapel Hil

 

[struth]

Nope.
No, Donald Trump has not appeared before a Congressional committee to be questioned. He has faced subpoenas but has often refused to comply with them.

americanoversight.org University of North Carolina at Chapel Hil

Name another time a sitting president testified before a committee…

 

[White 6]

Name another time a sitting president testified before a committee…

I was simply correcting what another poster stated incorrectly as fact.

 

[struth]

I was simply correcting what another poster stated incorrectly as fact.

View attachment 1205901

So never

 

[White 6]

So never

Correct. He never appeared.
While former President Trump was subpoenaed to testify before congressional committees, he filed lawsuits to avoid compliance, arguing that no president has ever been compelled to testify. This refusal to cooperate with congressional subpoenas has set a precedent for future administrations.

WHYY co-equal.org

 

[struth]

Correct. He never appeared.
While former President Trump was subpoenaed to testify before congressional committees, he filed lawsuits to avoid compliance, arguing that no president has ever been compelled to testify. This refusal to cooperate with congressional subpoenas has set a precedent for future administrations.

WHYY co-equal.org

Gotcha, so in an unprecedented move the Dems in Congress tried to get the President to come testify, and he successfully sued and didn't have to.

How desperate of the Dems

 

[White 6]

Gotcha, so in an unprecedented move the Dems in Congress tried to get the President to come testify, and he successfully sued and didn't have to.

How desperate of the Dems

Historically, Congress has had mixed success in enforcing subpoenas against individuals who refuse to comply. While there are instances where Congress has successfully compelled testimony through legal action, many cases have resulted in lengthy negotiations or have gone unresolved due to the complexities of executive privilege and other legal challenges.
Library of Congress Wikipedia
My guess is desperate politically motivated MAGA Republicans will be unsuccessful forcing the Clintons to testify.
Good luck with your future endeavors in other areas, as I would hate to see you consumed in some sort of loser's persecution complex.

 

[struth]

Historically, Congress has had mixed success in enforcing subpoenas against individuals who refuse to comply. While there are instances where Congress has successfully compelled testimony through legal action, many cases have resulted in lengthy negotiations or have gone unresolved due to the complexities of executive privilege and other legal challenges.
Library of Congress Wikipedia
My guess is desperate politically motivated MAGA Republicans will be unsuccessful forcing the Clintons to testify.
Good luck with your future endeavors in other areas, as I would hate to see you consumed in some sort of loser's persecution complex.

Trump might be forced to prosecute them, like Xiden did with Navarro.

Obviously, they have a lot to try and hide if they are risking prison over Epstein.,

 

[White 6]

Trump might be forced to prosecute them, like Xiden did with Navarro.

Obviously, they have a lot to try and hide if they are risking prison over Epstein.,

Good luck with your future endeavors in other areas, as I would hate to see you consumed in some sort of loser's persecution complex.

 

[Mashmont]

Bullshit. Starr was on a vendetta.

His job was to investigate whether or not Clinton had committed fraud in Whitewater (he didn't.) Not to go on a 70 million dollar panty-raid.

Starr's job was to follow the evidence, which he did. Turns out Clinton's sordid personal life (which ended up endangering the country) showed up in the evidence. America is very grateful to Starr.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, this does not change my claim that one woman’s claim of rape fell short on Trump, he is perpetually deemed a rapist while MULTIPLE women accused Clinton of rape and/or assault, every woman is dismissed or smeared as opposed to Clinton getting labeled like Trump.

Clinton and Trump were once buddies and both have histories of being aggressive sexually with women.

How did it fall short? Because he might have used his finger instead of his dick? That's the only difference between Sexual Assault and rape in this case.

25 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct.

Now, all that said, yes, Clinton is a jerk towards women.

Trump is much worse.

 

[JoeB131]

Starr's job was to follow the evidence, which he did. Turns out Clinton's sordid personal life (which ended up endangering the country) showed up in the evidence. America is very grateful to Starr.

For what?

Clinton left office with a 67% approval rating.