The Subpoena Wars Have Begun!

by Kagro X

Yes, the first shot in the Subpoena Wars of the 110th Congress has been fired. Only, guess who's been hit?

That's right. The target of the first subpoena exchanged between the Democratic legislative branch and the GOP executive branch is... House Democrats.

Via TPMmuckraker:

At the House Appropriations Committee, the new chairman, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), had no sooner sat down and given his gavel a couple of test whacks before he was handed a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Diego demanding thousands of documents by January 11th. Even though prosecutors nailed Duke Cunningham, they continue to pursue the hanging threads of the investigation -- namely whether the defense contractors who bribed him had their hooks into other lawmakers and/or staffers.

All well and good, of course. Got to get to the bottom of things, after all. But note that (according to subscription-only Roll Call), they're asking the wrong guys:

“To ask us to produce that stuff by [Jan. 11] is ridiculous given the fact that we haven’t taken over yet and every record that we’re talking about is a Republican record so I have no idea what the documents are and it’s a Republican problem.... We will try to cooperate, but it’s a Republican problem.”

Now that Democrats are in the majority, of course, requests for access to committee records have to go through Democrats.

And since Duke Cunningham did most of his dirty work on behalf of defense contractors, that'll mean that the Defense appropriations subcommittee will be busiest complying with the request.

Wonder if that has anything to do with this?

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee, said he intends to block funding for any escalation plan.

Or this?

[Pelosi] said the House defense appropriations subcommittee, led by her close ally Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., will conduct vigorous oversight when the Bush administration soon proposes its next special spending program for the war, expected to total about $100 billion.

In subpoena wars, there are a few basic tricks available to frustrate the purpose of the other side. If you're issuing the subpoenas, you can flood your opponents' offices with demand after demand, burying their staff in an endless stream of pointless work. If you're the target of the subpoenas, you can flood your opponents' offices with document after document, and make them sort the wheat from the chaff.

Of course, it may very well be that Democratic Appropriations staff would normally want to do everything possible to help investigators pry into the remaining nooks and crannies of the Cunningham case. But they'll also want to be able to keep their eye on the Iraq ball, which is what their boss will be demanding.

Keep this first shot in mind when the White House and their apologists among the ranks of Republican legislators start crying about the complexities and distractions created by Congressional subpoenas issued by Democrats.

By that time, Republicans will claim to have forgotten all about this first strike. Or more likely, simply claim there's no relationship between the two, this first subpoena having come from the U.S. Attorney's office.

Which I guess will be a signal that it's time for us to celebrate the death of the "unitary executive." Huzzah!

Comments

[TheOtherWA]

The DOJ assumes the Dems will actually respond to their requests, unlike Repubs. They're probably right.

However, that deadline is a bit harsh for the large amount of records (I'm assuming) they've requested. Is the DOJ up against statute of limitations in these cases? Why the rush? The Dukester ain't going anywhere.

[Kagro X]

That's a good explanation in a vacuum, anyway. If the DOJ assumes (and is right) that Dems will actually respond to their requests, then why subpoena?

And if they assume that Dems will respond and Republicans won't, then why not see if maybe the US Attorney for San Diego can find a microphone some time during the nine month span in which they've been seeking these documents? And maybe pipe up about GOP intransigence?

Nahhhh!

[creeper]

Obviously this is just the beginning of a long war of obstruction. Pretty creative, I must admit...setting the Dems up to look bad on Cunningham's crookedness.

I see Rove's and Gonzalez' fingerprints all over this one.

[Flip Wilson]

Absolutely, I agree with Creeper!

[prostratedragon]

Yep. Thing for them is, though, they can't hvae that many of those arrows in the quiver.

Between this kind of thing and the willingness of Bush to destabilize the Horn of Africa while still courting disaster in two three different places in Western Asia, I'd say that everybody's pretty near all in, though it's not yet being acknowledged widely.

[ee]

"keep their eye on the Iraq ball"

Can Obey serve on a committee now or is it like the Plame subpeona's banned for five years after being served. Can they do this to Dingell too and get a good start? Pelosi too, we need the money for Iraq!

[Ann in AZ]

My understanding per TPM Muckraker is that they tried to get documents from the Congress last month, but met with a cold shoulder. The real culprit seems to be the CIA, which is stonewalling subpoenas because some of their current and former officer, including executive director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, are targets of the ongoing investigation. See the article in TPM Muckraker By Justin Rood - January 9, 2007, 10:01 AM. Here's the link:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002305.php

[Kirk Spencer]

While the deadline appears a bit harsh, I'll note in my non-expert opinion that some materials require a subpoena instead of a letter requesting information. At this point I don't know which side is right, the "they're interfering with the Dem agenda" crowd or the "they're finally able to get something" crowd - the information's scant enough that Occam's razor creates two big chunks of equal size.