The subpoena follies
OK, time for an in-class survey. Raise your hands if you think that Donald Trump will respond to the January 6 subpoena. Anyone? Anyone? Now, let me just scan the room and do a quick count of hands, and if you'll just gimme a moment, by my rough count, there are roughly zero hands raised in the room right now, and while OK, technically I am the only one in the room right now, (my cat being otherwise occupied), I am reasonably certain that sampling bias is not much of a problem here.
Suppose the Committee had issued its subpoena earlier. Steve Bannon, for example, was convicted of criminal contempt for his failure to respond to his subpoena. What might have happened?
The first question would be whether or not Trump would have responded. He would have needed to consider a few things. First, he is incapable of speaking the truth, on anything, ever. Had he responded, and done anything other than plead the fifth, he would have perjured himself because if he had been asked what he had for breakfast, he would have perjured himself. Not because it would have mattered, but just because he doesn't know how to not lie. So, responding would have meant either pleading the fifth or committing perjury.
Best move? Don't respond, and dare the Committee to refer the case to Garland for criminal contempt. Right now, there isn't even time for that. The subpoena will be rescinded when Speaker Gohmert takes over and demands a nation-wide hunt for the possums that rigged all the voting machines, at which point we all feast on possum using the Gohmert family special possum recipe, oooEEE that's some good-eatin' possum.
Anyway, even if the Committee had subpoenaed Trump earlier, Trump had failed to respond, and the Committee had voted to refer a criminal contempt charge to the DoJ, this is not one that Garland would have pursued. If Garland wouldn't charge Meadows, he wouldn't have charged Trump on that. Does that mean Garland won't charge Trump for the stolen documents at Mar-a-Lago? I have no idea what Garland will do about the Mar-a-Lago papers, but that's the only thing that might get Trump criminally charged.
But now think for a moment. If Congress is issuing subpoenas, which get ignored, and they subsequently refer contempt charges to the DoJ that DoJ won't pursue, what is the effect?
It weakens Congress. The only reason anyone responds to a subpoena is the belief that failure to do so will result in some consequence, and every demonstration that this isn't true weakens subpoena power.
Congress needs that subpoena power, for the purposes of oversight and investigation. Congress is going to abuse that power, starting next year, so the benefit of weakening Congress's investigative tools is that when Lauren Boebert, as Chair of the Special Committee to Investigate Microchips In Vaccines, tries to subpoena Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, and some cartoon meme floating around Truth-Social, the former two will tell her to go fuck herself, and it will be doubly irrelevant that she can't find an address for the process server for the latter.
Yet in the long term, in the hypothetical case that democratic institutions had any chance of survival, those institutional checks and balances would need to exist. When Trump flouts a rule and chips away at an institution, that does damage.
This isn't just a silly stunt, or a PR gimmick. By giving Trump another opportunity to show that he is above the rules, and above the law, the Committee is helping to undercut the rule of law. Wrong way to go. The only chance-- and it's a slim one-- is that Garland nails Trump on the Mar-a-Lago papers. Legally, Trump has zero argument, but as I have said, facts and law aren't what will determine the outcome. The composition of the jury pool would, in the case of charges being brought. It is a difficult path, but it is the only way anyone stops him.
Here's a live performance by The Black Lillies of "Same Mistakes," from 100 Miles of Wreckage. One of the best country/bluegrass/rock/whatever bands you will ever hear.
Comments
Post a Comment