kata1yst comments on "and then they came for the socialists"

[–] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

No subpoenas in Congress are by quorum so one name listed that isn't ranking chair and with the proper verbiage is simply a scare tactic.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent