« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
House Moves to Block Alleged Briber's Subpoenas
As expected, the House of Representatives' general counsel filed a motion yesterday arguing that none of the 12 lawmakers subpoenaed by Brent Wilkes should have to show.
Wilkes, remember, is on the hook for allegedly bribing Duke Cunningham. When pressed by the House's lawyers, his lawyer refused to reveal the method behind the madness, only insisting that all 12 lawmakers show up to testify at Wilkes' trial.
The House's lawyers argued that the information sought by Wilkes is "absolutely privileged" under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.
Advertisement
Comments (5)
Stan T wrote on September 27, 2007 11:26 AM:Umm...
Doesn't the Sixth Amendment's right to obtain witnesses supersede the original Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause? And also the legislators' privilege from arrest?
It will be fun when the judge orders the Marshals to arrest House members for contempt. I'm sure their election opponents will enjoy it.
P J Evans wrote on September 27, 2007 11:26 AM:Why do I have this feeling that at least some of them know a lot more about Wilkes and Cunningham that they want revealed to the public? (And a lot more about how bribes are taken and distributed in Congress than they wnat us to know, even if they aren't involved with Wilkes and Cunningham. There are probably a lot more dirty Dems than we think.)
Mark Ropel wrote on September 27, 2007 1:18 PM:Re. PJEVANS"There are probably a lot more dirty Dems than we think" Why would you say that? It's most logical to think that with all 3 branches in firm GOP control, Dems would be sought out, Jefferson had 85K in the freezer Cunningham had MILLIONS, and then there's Alabama and Mich, officials imprisoned on virtually nothing, I say let them talk.
p_lukasiak wrote on September 27, 2007 2:37 PM:I find it amazing that Pelosi is allowing the "speech or debate" clause (which says "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [Congresscritters]shall not be questioned in any other Place." ) The clause is clearly in reference to what is said publicly in congress, and does not include what is done "behind closed doors."
eb wrote on September 27, 2007 4:21 PM:The speech and debate clause excuse is a non-starter, especially when they already say they do not know what they will be asked to testify about.
Why do lawmakers feel that subpoenas don't apply to them jusy because they are members of congress?
eb