you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 1 year ago (19 children)

"Referral for criminal investigation" is very much not an idle threat, and their absurdly sweeping record request was probably made with that in mind. If there's something missing (or just something they say is missing), they can go after and make an example of the "socalist instigators" behind california's rebellion against trump, retroactively justifying his deployment of troops in the face of what now is "clearly" an organized campaign of sedition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

    Since this is just a letter and not a subpoena it has no legal authority behind it and is essentially a checklist of records to immediately destroy.

    Edit:

    So this may be a legal Subpoena. The organization should clarify with a lawyer and if it does not reach the legal threshold destroy those documents.

    Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas..

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 children)

    I dont think it requires a full formal subpoena for something to be considered a legal order, so non-compliance with the terms in this letter could easily be held as contempt of congress. (the record preservation part, at least. The rest is a 1st amendment SCOTUS case just waiting to happen).

    Edit:

    Although arguably any action that directly obstructs the effort of Congress to exercise its constitutional powers may constitute a contempt, in recent times the contempt power has most often been employed in response to non- compliance with a duly issued congressional subpoena—whether in the form of a refusal to appear before a committee for purposes of providing testimony, or a refusal to produce requested documents.

    So, kinda yeah...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I'm fairly certain you need something more official than a signed letter, but I'm not a lawyer.

    So consult a lawyer and then if legal destroy those records

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    What is a subpoena, if not a signed letter from an agent of congress directing either testimony or production of information? Its possible this letter in itself could be considered a subpoena, since it was delivered in an official capacity. The only formalisms I'm aware of are guidelines and convention, which don't really mean anything anymore, and this letter seems to fit all the definitions I can find. I know it's a dumb question to get hung up on since obviously "talk to a lawyer" is the #1 thing to do here, but still it's an interesting question as to how legally binding an order in a form like this actually is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    So I did a bit of a dive and this is what I found:

    Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas..

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

    So clarify with a lawyer and ensure that this action was taken under full legal authority and it likely was. I will edit my main comment to prevent the spread of misinformation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    No need, subpoenas are obvious and in fact of they aren't obvious they aren't a subpoena. Almost every subpoena from Congress the Senate or otherwise will have some variation of "subpoena duces tecum" in the header or the phrase you are "ordered" or "commanded" to appear or provide whatever.

    To Nixon https://www.justsecurity.org/61535/congress-subpoena-trump-testify/

    Charles Mitchell https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/investigations/image/Pecora_MitchellSubpoena_display.htm

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    A legal order must be served and authorized by the courts. A legislator has no means to do this without a subpoena.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    What? No it doesn't - the courts can rule on a subpoena once given out, but congress absolutely can issue them itself without certification from the courts. (edit: I'm actually unclear about this requirement, it's quite possible you're correct in that the courts must endorse an issued congressional subpoena) That's a cornerstone of the separation of powers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Nah, this is a letter from a single congressmen listing all his committes to make it look scary and official. Contempt of a congressmen isn't contempt of Congress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Isn't that what a subpoena is? A letter from a duly authorized congressman or comittee directing production of information or testimony?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    From Wikipedia:

    contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a congressional committee or subcommittee

    So the question becomes is this Hawley or something the committee/subcommittee voted to send? It reads like Hawley to me, but IANAL.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, thats what I'm curious about. I don't know how much of this is formality and how much codified procedure, but it seems fairly plausible that this letter could be reasonably considered a subpoena - or at least, non-compliance could be considered contempt of congress.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Never do that by the way. You don't want destroyed documents you want plausible deniability and no direct link to recovery. If you are charged with spoliation generally whatever is claimed to be in the document that was destroyed is held as true even if it may not actually be true.

    Essentially it can harm you much much more then help.

  • source
  • parent