The House Election Commission investigating the parliamentary attack has issued an unprecedented summons to force five Republicans to reveal inside information about Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 elections. I made a political and legal bet when I issued it.
The move is an extraordinary high-stakes reaction to both the summoned Republicans (Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs, Mo Brooks) and the panel itself. And start a counterattack confrontation.
Democratic Chairman Bennie Thompson of the Special Committee approved the subpoena on Wednesday after the panel was convened for final discussions on whether to continue the subpoena.
“We asked most of them to come forward in a letter, and when they said they wouldn’t come to us, we issued a subpoena,” Thompson said of McCarthy and his. I said about my colleague. “It’s a process, and that process obviously needed debate and debate.”
This decision was made after the recognition that the January 6 investigation would not have been completed unless at least trying to force the cooperation of some Republican lawmakers most deeply involved in Trump’s illegal plans. rice field.
However, the subpoena is about an effort to obtain new information for an investigation into an effort to suspend Joe Biden’s certification in time for the hearing, as well as an important last moment of the investigation. It is about exercising political and legal power.
That is evident from the conundrum faced by the summoned Republicans. There is knowledge that how they respond to orders seeking testimony about contact with Trump will determine the future of investigation and parliamentary subpoena authority.
During the days before the special committee agreed that Thompson would approve the subpoena, panel members gamed out the scenario, and the subpoenas are actually mutually beneficial, according to controversial sources. I came to the conclusion that it was a difficult situation.
Information that if the summoned Republicans decide to comply with and cooperate with the Special Committee as the subpoena is designed to do, the panel will clearly benefit from their testimony. Sources spoke of the panel’s discussion.
If the summoned House Republicans promise a retaliation subpoena to the Democrats if they win a majority in the House next year, they will do so anyway, and the Special Commission will reason and issue a subpoena. is needed.
If the summoned House Republicans simply ignore the order, and if the Republicans make up the majority of the House next year, they will only undermine their ability to summon Democrats in partisan investigations.
The scope of cooperation by the five Republican parliamentarians also sets an additional precedent. If McCarthy and his colleagues appear to take testimony, but interfere with the investigation, Democrats will ensure that they will return in kind when they receive the subpoena.
Before Mr. Thompson approved the subpoena he hoped to cooperate with, the special committee left the final meeting, but did not really expect anything, sources said. If House Republicans agree to testify, it’s a welcome surprise.
But that last point is important, and sources have found that the subpoena in that sense is almost self-compulsory.
The problem is that Republicans in the House, if they make up the majority of the House, dream of subpouring Democrats in partisan investigations. However, these subpoenas will only be in power if Republicans did not weaken the subpoenas by first opposing the parliamentary subpoenas.
The “precedent” question often ridicules Democrats as stupid because they believe they are willing to oppose the subpoena and obey Democrats regardless of their previous actions. It was considered on Thursday.
At least one of the summoned Republicans was seriously discussing precedent issues with his staff, according to staff in the member’s office. And after the subpoena was released, none of the five Republicans specifically said they would oppose them.
The immediate and remorseful reaction at Capitol Hill to the subpoena centered on how the Special Committee intended to enforce the subpoena, but the Panel was true to pursuing legal enforcement. Not interested, sources said.
If a summoned Republican lawmaker appeals to block the subpoena in court, the special committee in that case will probably challenge the subpoena on behalf of the panel, though only formal. Let’s go.
However, if the summoned Republican disregards the order, all efforts to get the court to support the subpoena will take months and last longer than the existence of the panel, so the Commissioner will probably be in a “self-execution” mechanism. Sources said it would depend.
It was not clear whether the Justice Department would accept such referrals, but the Commission could also always decide whether to punish the breach and refer five Republicans for criminal insults in Congress. Said.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the Special Committee, told reporters that he could hardly stand the Republican dissatisfaction with the unprecedented nature of the subpoena and the detention faced by the five Republicans. Told.
“If we continue to violence against Congress and the Vice President, the Peaceful Transition of Power, and lawmakers have the information, they should come and testify voluntarily,” Ruskin said. “If not, we should all expect a subpoena to be submitted.”
Subpoenas of Trump allies involved in plans to overturn 2020 elections set high stakes showdown | 2020 US elections
Source link Subpoenas of Trump allies involved in plans to overturn 2020 elections set high stakes showdown | 2020 US elections