Peter Frampton: "What is the point of a subpoena if, when handed it, you can just say "No" and..."

[Miles Archer]

Peter Frampton
@peterframpton

What is the point of a subpoena if, when handed it, you can just say “No” and we go, “Ok, sorry to bother you”. Raid the f_ckers and get what we are asking for!

3:27 PM · Oct 8, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

Link to tweet

[RKP5637]

1. Democrats are too easy IMO. They need to start kicking butt rather than saying pretty please, n/t

[mitch96]

29. "Democrats are too easy IMO"

Exactly..... if you had them a subpoena with no fist in your glove..... it's just a piece of paper.
m

[SharonAnn]

30. "Subpoena" means "under penalty"

"Middle English (as a noun): from Latin sub poena ‘under penalty’ (the first words of the writ). "

[Beakybird]

2. Baby, I love your way!

[smirkymonkey]

22. +1000

That was beautiful! Swoon!

[UniteFightBack]

3. I DO NOT understand why there are NO FINES?!?!??!?! Time to rent out some hotel rooms and lock

them the fuck up in there.

[pangaia]

15. And WHO will lock them up?

[UniteFightBack]

16. The house police people whatever their name is. FINES. nt

[pangaia]

18. These folks?

https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/legislative-branch-partners/u-s-capitol-police

Why am I not confident about this?


https://www.uscp.gov
This looks a little more promising, I will say.
But what happens when they reach the white house, or wherever it is thy go to arrest somebody...?

I don;t know the answer..

[UniteFightBack]

21. No...this guy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

[pangaia]

23. LOLOL !!!!!!!!!!!

OK, I DID update my post above,, have a look...

[UniteFightBack]

26. I know it won't happen ...but that's why I'm emphasizing the fines...WHY have not any been levied?

I don't understand it.

[triron]

28. Why not? It happened before. Here is what I found about it in wikipedia:

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation).[10]

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by Vice President John Nance Garner, in his capacity as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who was charged with allowing clients to remove or rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.[11]

[Backseat Driver]

27. Wouldn't matter as AG would run to friendly Fed court with

writs of HC for illegal detainment...No?

[Grasswire2]

44. hotel rooms?? DC Lockup isn't good enough for them?

I say throw them in general population in the D.C. jail. (Notorious hospitality)

[kwolf68]

4. Frampton has come alive

Speaking up, love it. Awaiting rebuttal from the "talented" Republican musicians like The Nuge, Alice Cooper, Dave Mustaine (though he is very gifted) and country music.

[Skittles]

5. PREACH IT, PETER

yes INDEED

[dawg]

6. I do feel like you do, Peter.

[C_U_L8R]

7. Show me the way

[blm]

8. Dems can't be all like Once Bitten, Twice Shy

No time for dat.

[YOHABLO]

9. Actually we're facing a Constitutional Crisis. Republicans will not support

the law of the land. What's left? Physical force. I think that's where we have to go.

[7wo7rees]

11. Where are the tyranny-hatin' gunhumpers now? n/t

[yaesu]

13. we are facing a fascism crisis, where the constitution has been replaced by a capitalistic oligarchy

[Beartracks]

10. Remember when Republicans claimed Clinton's lies set a bad example...

... for our kids? What do they now suppose children learn from Trump and his crew?

======

[Proud Liberal Dem]

40. Trump is such an awful foul-mouth degenerate and overall nasty person

All of the moral outrage of the Republicans and the media about Clinton's behavior seems extremely trite now, especially since they were the ones that blasted it all over the airwaves and exposed everybody to it day in and day out for months during that whole saga.

[RightiswrongTn]

12. FRAMPTON COMES ALIVE!¡

[dchill]

14. You beat me to it!

[Zambero]

31. SHOWS THE WAY!

[flibbitygiblets]

17. I feel like you do, Peter!

Oh, that's true!

[chwaliszewski]

20. Rats, you beat me to it.

[chwaliszewski]

19. "Do you feel like we do, Peter?"

Apparently, he does.

[Kid Berwyn]

24. That's all right. That's all right.

Raid the f_ckers and get what we are asking for, already.

Trump will stretch things out in court until Doomsday, which thanks to what he did to the Kurds today, could be sooner rather than later.

[DAMANgoldberg]

25. #JustSayin

I'm old enough to have watched this live:

[SMC22307]

49. 14-year-old-girl hormones just came raging back.

Phew.

[orangecrush]

32. Give them "30 Days in the Hole"!

(Humble Pie with Frampton)

[blue-wave]

33. He's spot on!!

Raid the f_ckers......

Peter Frampton. Those were the days.....I went to a concert of his a long time ago at Soldier Field in Chicago.

[Mc Mike]

34. What's the point of having repug officials swear an oath of office, since they always foreswear

themselves, always violate their oaths, never do their jobs, never preserve protect and defend the Constitution and the US, and never pay any price?

[IronLionZion]

35. Send the FBI to kick down doors

[warmfeet]

36. Yep.

Without real penalties there can be no accountability.

[blakstoneranger]

37. FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WISH TO TESTIFY

Encourage them to tesfify and disregard trump's so-called executive priviledge!! if trump doesn't comply, then witnesses should ignore trump's request of exec privilege and testify anyway, what is he going to do. Once witnesses start testifying, trump will start to cooperate. The worst that can happen is trump can have them arrested. But they can still testify!!

[blueinredohio]

38. Sounds like a smart man. My thoughts also.

[DBoon]

39. Make them eat Humble Pie!

nt

[maxsolomon]

41. Well, Sondland wasn't under a Subpoena until he didn't show up for a Deposition

NOW he's under a Subpoena for 10/11.

When the DOJ is corrupted and will not enforce a lawful Subpoena...

[Javaman]

42. I want you to show me the way...

thanks Peter!

[pecosbob]

43. Actually, there is this...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212562691

the Feb 2019 spending bill prohibits pay to federal officials who prevent other officials from communicating with Congress.

-signed by Gump

One would hope that by extension this would bar the person from using federal transportation or lodging or even entering government facilities. 'Security will escort you to the parking lot.'

[bdamomma]

45. yesterday it was Jason Alexander

today it's Peter Frampton, I think this is going to snowball. We must never give up. NEVER.

[extvbroadcaster]

46. I agree

I don't understand how you can just ignore a subpoena. If you are Trump, a member of the GOP, his family, the White House? Then you just get to ignore the law, tell Congress to screw and go on your merry way. If I did that they would have me in jail immediately. It does not make sense. The country is falling apart.

[LTG]

47. Assertion of Executive Privilege

The President is permitted to assert Executive Privilege on any exchange, in any form, between an individual from any Executive agency or department. This also includes any individual who is not in government but is a close advisor to the President. It also includes exchanges with individuals in government service at the time but are no longer government employees. In normal times this is an important part of separation of the branches of government.

To overcome such an assertion requires the involvement of the Judicial Branch. There are a number of exceptions, such as criminal activity. There is also a much larger exception to the privilege in the case of a formal impeachment inquiry, thus the question on that issue raised by the administration.

The court can limit the avenues of questioning and production of physical evidence. One branch has no power to physically seize any materials by force.

The individual witness could be arrested pending a trial by the House on the matter. But, I doubt the court would allow such confinement pending a finding by the court on the issue of privilege.

Likewise I doubt a provision for any coercive action, such as withholding pay, would be allowed by the court pending determination of privilege.

This privilege is an important one that allows the exercise of Constitutional powers without interference by another branch. The courts are the arbiter in such cases. This privilege also protects the Legislative Branch from demands by the Executive Branch.

It’s misuse occurs many administrations but never this extreme and widespread.

Edited to add inclusion of former government employees.

[titanicdave]

48. .......If The Bastards....

.....ignore and display nothing but contempt for the subpoenas, it is time to throw their asses behind bars.....enough of this bullshit......time to flex our muscles and show the mofos that we mean business.....