Congressional Subpoena Watch updateBy Bill Allison Sep 21 2007 5:55 a.m. 2 comments
Just a few notes...
First, as we all should know, getting a subpoena, even in connection with your official work duties, does not indicate that you (or your boss, in the case of staffers) did anything wrong; all it means for sure is that someone thinks you have relevant information in a legal proceeding and wants to compel your testimony. Watcher makes this point here about Rep. Mark Udall and two of his staffers who turned up in the list I put together here, and suggests that maybe those subpoenas had something to do with an activist who camped out in the congressman's office; she tells her side of the story here.
Radley Balko writes something about the Cunningham 13 refusing to cooperate that makes me think that any future subpoena watch should be able to note whether the the member or staffer intended to honor the subpoena, rejected it on the grounds of congressional privilege, or were still consulting with the House's general counsel. (Examples of all three types of notifications can be seen here, here and here.
Search the Blog
Real Time Ticker
- California billionaire pumps $1 million more into Mass. senate race
- Stealthy super PAC avoids disclosing donors before Mass. special election
- Pesticide industry would benefit from farm bill provisions
- Will Bloomberg's wrath hurt senators who opposed gun bill?
- Study finds link between who gives to judicial candidates and how they decide