Ignoring Subpoenas = Obstructing Justice
8/26/22
While I have no professional experience with subpoenas, from what I’ve been able to gather, the issuance of a subpoena is just part of an information gathering process, often initiated after earlier requests for the voluntary submission of information have proven ineffective. When issued, subpoenas lay out starting propositions as to some set of information being sought; but the parties involved typically end up negotiating the scope of the content to be provided.
When it comes to efforts to collect documents, it may be reasonable to expect some cases of overreach to arise, where the process of assembling the itemized documents and records could be onerous. In those cases, resistance to fulfilling those demands may be understandable. Beyond that, one can’t summarily dismiss the possibility that subpoenas could be politically motivated. Finding a mutually acceptable balance can be problematic; and under such circumstances, a judge may get involved if and when the parties are unable to reach a mutually acceptable resolution.
These considerations clearly came into play over a period of many months in connection with the government’s efforts to retrieve documents from Donald Trump after he left office, culminating with an apparently legally executed search warrant at the Mar-a-Largo property. The National Archives had initially contacted Trump about these documents as early as March 2021, but it wasn’t until May 2022 that Trump was faced with a subpoena. Some three months following the service of that subpoena, the search warrant was executed. (A more detailed timeline relating to the efforts to reclaim these documents is presented here.)
Trump seems to have been caught red handed acting in bad faith, lying about having returned all of the materials that had been spelled out in a subpoena — documents that never should have been at Mar-a-Largo in the first place. From where I sit, the National Archives and the Justice Department acted with inappropriately generous forbearance, given the history. Trump forced the Justice Department to take this heretofore unprecedented step by his own intransigence.
Meanwhile, in another high-profile case, no comparable resolution seems to be in the offing. Specifically, Republican House members Andy Biggs (AZ), Mo Brooks (AL), Jim Jordan (OH), Kevin McCarthy (CA), and Scott Perry (PA) appear to be continuing in their disregard of Congressional subpoenas. It’s possible that some behind-the-scenes negotiations may be going on that we know nothing about in the case of these various Congressmen; but either the committee has been extraordinarily patient in these negotiations, or they’ve simply elected to let the matter slide. In either case, the apparent lack of urgency or the failure to compel these recalcitrant House members to provide their testimony is unacceptable. These individuals have information pertinent to the January 6th Committee’s investigation, and their shielding of that information is nothing short of reprehensible.
I have no tolerance for allowing these House member’s assessment as to the Committees legitimacy (or illegitimacy) to serve as justifications for their disregarding of subpoenas. Congress bears a critical responsibility to provide checks and balances, and these representatives are thwarting the fulfillment of that obligation. At the very least, these Congressmen should show up and testify under oath in a timely manner. I don’t quite understand how that baseline of compliance could or should be objectionable. More to the point: those who’ve been served a subpoena should provide testimony under oath in a timely manner or else be prosecuted for obstructing justice.
Duly authorized subpoenas cannot be ignored. Those who fail to comply with subpoenas issued by such governmental agencies are jeopardizing a fundamental tenet that’s at the root of our constitutional structure and the rule of law. Their defiance would be shameful for anyone, but it is particularly so for sitting members of Congress who should recognize the threat that they are imposing. Their conduct should disqualify them from serving as elected officials at any level. They’re not worthy of our trust.
