How Many Congressional Committees Will Investigate Flynn?

[BigRedBuster]

If Trump starts pardoning everyone who the Senate subpoenas so they aren't forced to testify or turn over documents, I would expect impeachment sooner rather than later.

[knapplc]

Are subpoenas things to "honor" at one's grace and discretion?

There are legal defenses to a subpoena, but I doubt any of them hold up here. I imagine they'll move to quash the subpoena on the grounds that it would require Flynn to disclose protected information, or that it's unduly burdensome, or that it's simply unlawful in some obscure way. They'll bounce that basketball through a few courts and see if it works. If not, Trump will step in.

[Red Five]

Congressional subpoenas are different than legal ones.

 

When an obstinate subject decides to dig in, congressional subpoenas often don’t succeed. And when lawmakers vote to hold someone in contempt of Congress, the cases frequently end up in court, sometimes stalled for years. Other times, members of Congress have avoided a showdown altogether, recognizing the limits of their authority.

 

Republicans, for instance, never secured testimony from Hillary Clinton’s former technology aide, Bryan Pagliano, about her private email set-up, despite a subpoena and a committee vote last year to hold him in contempt. In 2012, the Justice Department declined to prosecute former Attorney General Eric Holder after he defied a congressional subpoena, citing executive privilege. And Justice declined to go after former IRS official Lois Lerner for contempt in 2015, even though she had refused to testify before a House panel.

 

And when they are stonewalled by a witness, there's often little the committees can do to force quick compliance. Congressional subpoenas, according to lawyer Stanley Brand, sometimes amount to little more than “a piece of paper.”

 

“The problem is enforcing them,” said Brand, a senior counsel at Akin Gump who has represented individuals under investigation by Congress. “They can go the civil route in the Senate, but that’s a lengthy process. That can take a year or more. They could go under the criminal statute, but that’s sort of unavailing because by the time that gets decided, it’ll be the next Congress.”

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/15/flynn-senate-subpoena-russia-trump-238404

[RedDenver]

Congressional subpoenas are different than legal ones.

 

When an obstinate subject decides to dig in, congressional subpoenas often don’t succeed. And when lawmakers vote to hold someone in contempt of Congress, the cases frequently end up in court, sometimes stalled for years. Other times, members of Congress have avoided a showdown altogether, recognizing the limits of their authority.

 

Republicans, for instance, never secured testimony from Hillary Clinton’s former technology aide, Bryan Pagliano, about her private email set-up, despite a subpoena and a committee vote last year to hold him in contempt. In 2012, the Justice Department declined to prosecute former Attorney General Eric Holder after he defied a congressional subpoena, citing executive privilege. And Justice declined to go after former IRS official Lois Lerner for contempt in 2015, even though she had refused to testify before a House panel.

 

And when they are stonewalled by a witness, there's often little the committees can do to force quick compliance. Congressional subpoenas, according to lawyer Stanley Brand, sometimes amount to little more than “a piece of paper.”

 

“The problem is enforcing them,” said Brand, a senior counsel at Akin Gump who has represented individuals under investigation by Congress. “They can go the civil route in the Senate, but that’s a lengthy process. That can take a year or more. They could go under the criminal statute, but that’s sort of unavailing because by the time that gets decided, it’ll be the next Congress.”

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/15/flynn-senate-subpoena-russia-trump-238404

It's true that Congressional subpoenas are mostly empty threats, but there's a grand jury looking into Flynn, which can hold a witness in contempt for failure to testify (I think it's up to a year in prison).

[knapplc]

It's, apparently, not certain that Flynn's lawyers actually said that he wouldn't honor the subpoena. That came from the Republican Chairman of the Senate Intelligence (sic) Committee, Richard Burr.

 

Now they're walking back that statement, saying Flynn's lawyers haven't responded yet.