Interesting wording:
" The subpoena authorization gives the Chairman the ability to issue a subpoena for witnesses, documents or other materials. "
Lets see if the over grown ventriloquist dummy has the stones to go through with it.
A bigger question is this: Are congressional subpoenas binding? The blob's administration ignored them regularly.
yes they are binding and no the people being called in to be questioned can no longer claim executive privilege .. dem dems is goin to be showins ups ..
Hmmm...former blob admin officials didn't show up for subpoenas....sounds like a double standard.
Subpoenas issued illegally are not valid thus can be ignored. The senate judiciary committees will be valid and legal as Lindsey Graham has the authorization to legally issue them.
An illegal subpoena is like a search warrant not signed by a judge. Might look like a warrant and smell like a warrant but it's not a legal warrant thus is no good.
Sure...go with that lunacy. LOL. So your stance is that the House committee chairs don't have authorization but the Senate committee chairs do? Yeah, you're crazy.
And they don't when they did not follow proper procedure and obtain the vote to give themselves that authority.
Then why wasn't Trump or anyone held in contempt or anything when they told the House to shove their ******* subpoenas? Because they know their REASON for these things had NO LEGIT BACKING and would NOT have stood up to any legal challenge in a court of law.
" The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. A subpoena must potentially further some “legitimate legislative purpose,” the court has said. "
Saying "here is the man, lets find the crime" is not a "legit legislative purpose".
U.S. House Democrats threatened on Thursday to hold Attorney General William Barr in "contempt of Congress" for not complying with a subpoena to hand over an unredacted version of the Mueller report. What does that mean?
www.reuters.com