Speaker 1: How to everybody.
Speaker 2: I'm just staring at this subpoena on my desk that
Speaker 2: I'm going to ignore because I don't care about the
Speaker 2: rule of law.
Speaker 1: This, Chuck.
Speaker 2: It's Saturday, and from October twenty nineteen, we are replaying
Speaker 2: this episode about subpoenas. It's called What's the Deal with Subpoenas? Or,
Speaker 2: as Jerry Seinfeld might say, h what's the deal with subpoenas?
Speaker 2: That's my best Jerry Seinfeld. I hope you enjoyed it.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff you should know, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 3: Hey, welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 4: I'm Josh Clark, and there's Charles w Chuck Bryant, and
Speaker 4: there's Jerry Jerome Rowland over there, the Legal Eagles of podcasting.
Speaker 1: Ooh, can I be Daryl Hannah?
Speaker 3: Yes, I call Barbara Hershey.
Speaker 1: I don't think so.
Speaker 2: Who was it, oh, Legal Eagles? I know Deborah Winger? Yes,
Speaker 2: was Daryl Hannah even in that now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, she was the client of Deborah Winger.
Speaker 1: Okay, and you're not Redford?
Speaker 4: No, they always have to be Redford. Everybody's always like that.
Speaker 4: Guy's a regular Robert Redford. He'll play him in this scenario.
Speaker 1: Right, that's that's the street chatter.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Can I still be Barbara Hershey even though she wasn't
Speaker 4: in the movie. Sure, I think I'm thinking of beaches.
Speaker 1: Oh well, that means I get to be Bette Midler, right.
Speaker 4: I wonder how many podsave America listeners we just lost
Speaker 4: to it just casually decided to give us a chance.
Speaker 1: I want to learn about subpoenas, all right. Before we
Speaker 1: get going, though, can we.
Speaker 2: Quickly thank the cities of Orlando and Greater Orlando and
Speaker 2: Florida and New Orleans and Greater Louisiana. Yes, for two
Speaker 2: fun live shows.
Speaker 3: Yeah, those were a lot of fun. Let's see.
Speaker 4: We did Orlando on October ninth, I think, and then
Speaker 4: the tenth for New Orleans. Regardless, it was night back
Speaker 4: to back, two fun filled nights, and they were just
Speaker 4: both the main shows.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And when this comes out, I think New York will
Speaker 2: have been over. So thank you New York.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, yeah, we we presume it's going to have
Speaker 4: been a great time that three night run at the Bellhouse.
Speaker 1: They're always great there.
Speaker 3: And that's it too.
Speaker 4: That's it for us for the for the year, Chuck,
Speaker 4: So I mean thank you to everybody who came out
Speaker 4: to see our shows this year.
Speaker 2: Yeah, can we go ahead and tease our our January
Speaker 2: schedule for should we not?
Speaker 3: I think we can sure?
Speaker 1: All right, well, well.
Speaker 2: We're hoping to be back at sketch Fest again. And
Speaker 2: then what did we settle on?
Speaker 4: We I don't know settling is the right way to
Speaker 4: put it up. We decided between the Seattle. We're doing Seattle,
Speaker 4: oh we are, yeah, and normally for a January swing
Speaker 4: we do Portland Seattle sketch Fest. Right, Well, we've got
Speaker 4: the iHeart Radio Awards in there in Los Angeles and
Speaker 4: we just you know, kind of have to go to that. No, sorry,
Speaker 4: the iHeart Podcast Awards. They don't care about us at
Speaker 4: all at the radio now.
Speaker 1: We can't even get in that building.
Speaker 3: Right exactly.
Speaker 4: So we said, okay, well we gotta we gotta pull
Speaker 4: out one of our shows because we're old men and
Speaker 4: we just can't spend that much time on the road.
Speaker 4: So instead we're going to take Portland and put it
Speaker 4: with another town in the spring.
Speaker 3: So don't worry Portland, we will be out there.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe the Cove.
Speaker 3: That's what that's the talk, that's the chatter around town.
Speaker 2: But we have no dates confirmed yet. But this just
Speaker 2: look for us again in the Pacific Northwest at the
Speaker 2: beginning of the year.
Speaker 3: That's a much better way to put it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So, do you want to talk about subpoenas You
Speaker 4: got any other housekeeping to do?
Speaker 1: I don't think so. Subpoenas weird spelling.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, so I looked up the word subpoena is
Speaker 4: actually two words. It means under penalty, and it's typically
Speaker 4: the first two words that were read in this rid
Speaker 4: of subpoena, basically saying under penalty.
Speaker 1: Of blah blah blah.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I was thinking all I could think about is really
Speaker 4: dirty but dark stuff.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, yeah, so I just.
Speaker 4: Let you fill in the blah blah blah. But anyway,
Speaker 4: under penalty of whatever, you need to do one of
Speaker 4: two things. And there are two types of subpoenas that
Speaker 4: everybody you know, everybody hears subpoena and you think, like
Speaker 4: Law and Order, Maybe visions of Central Park run through
Speaker 4: your head because that's your only exposure to Central Park
Speaker 4: is from Law and Order.
Speaker 2: Yeah, or you think of the US government because a
Speaker 2: lot of this is going to be about congressional subpoenas
Speaker 2: because that's really the juiciest subpoena.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's It's not like it's new that Congress has
Speaker 4: just recently started issuing subpoenas. It's new in the conscious
Speaker 4: of America in this age, this generation.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's been going on for a while.
Speaker 4: But normally when people think subpoenas, until like basically twenty seventeen,
Speaker 4: sixteen eighteen, not necessarily in that order, most people thought
Speaker 4: of courtroom subpoenas, and that is, you know, typically the
Speaker 4: subpoena most people are ever going to come up against
Speaker 4: in their lifetime.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 2: But you mentioned the two types. Do you want to
Speaker 2: break out your Latin or shall.
Speaker 3: I you take the first, I'll take the second.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, the first one's easy.
Speaker 2: The first one is subpoena add testify candem.
Speaker 4: Wow did you see that? You just made a mouse
Speaker 4: appear and run out of the room. The next one
Speaker 4: so so sorry. The first one, the one you just said.
Speaker 1: That means you got to come to court.
Speaker 3: You just nailed it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it says that you have to come and testify,
Speaker 4: and you might not be a party to the lawsuit
Speaker 4: like this is. It can be a civil case or
Speaker 4: a criminal case, that's a big thing to point out,
Speaker 4: but basically it's saying, you have some information. You witnessed
Speaker 4: an act, you overheard a conversation, the defendant confessed something
Speaker 4: to you. We need you to come to court and
Speaker 4: tell your story. And that's what that first subpoena is
Speaker 4: saying to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and not necessarily court court, but it can be
Speaker 2: any kind of legal authority.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it could be a deposition, it could be an arbitration,
Speaker 4: but typically it's the authority of a court of law
Speaker 4: to basically say we're going to levy a fine against you,
Speaker 4: or we're going to arrest you and put you in
Speaker 4: jail if you don't listen. That's that's used to kind
Speaker 4: of enforce subpoenas. So the second one is the subpoena
Speaker 4: douces teakum, Hey nice, thank you, and that is basically saying, hey,
Speaker 4: you have a document, you have a hair sample, you
Speaker 4: have some sort of bodily fluids we want to get
Speaker 4: our hands on.
Speaker 3: You have a computer.
Speaker 4: Or a computer hard drive, you know, something like that
Speaker 4: that we want you to produce because we want to
Speaker 4: use it as evidence. And there's a really important point
Speaker 4: to put here, Like a court is saying, a court
Speaker 4: or an official of the court or of the government
Speaker 4: is saying, we want you to do this because we
Speaker 4: have this lawsuit going on and you have something we need.
Speaker 4: But it's not necessarily the judge saying, and the judge
Speaker 4: is signing off on it. It's really a lawyer or
Speaker 4: for one side or the other saying, Hey, I heard
Speaker 4: that this person has this secret tape and I need
Speaker 4: to get my hands on it. Judge, can you order
Speaker 4: this person to bring it to me so that I
Speaker 4: can enter it into evidence.
Speaker 2: And then the judge says, speak to my clerk, and
Speaker 2: then the clerk of the usually the clerk of the
Speaker 2: judge who's.
Speaker 3: Handling that case, they say, talk to the hand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they'll generally issue it on on like official
Speaker 2: court letterhead and official documentation. It's not like the judge
Speaker 2: is washing their hands of it necessarily.
Speaker 4: No, No, I'm sure like if they do something egregiously wrong,
Speaker 4: the judge is going to hear about it and punish them.
Speaker 1: That's right. And then it served usually in person kind
Speaker 1: of you know, handed to you like on the TV
Speaker 1: shows and in the movies.
Speaker 3: Yeah, either by a sheriff's deputy or a process server.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but not always.
Speaker 2: It depends on if it's congressional or if it's you know,
Speaker 2: civil regular Joshmo stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, yeah for sure.
Speaker 4: But I think even if it is regular civil joshmost stuff,
Speaker 4: you can still go higher the sheriff's department to serve papers.
Speaker 3: To serve a subpoena, oh for sure.
Speaker 1: I think the congressional ones are not served by a shriff.
Speaker 3: Oh, I see, who do they use?
Speaker 1: I think it depends it could.
Speaker 2: I mean the way congressional subpoena's work is all sort
Speaker 2: of dependent on the individual committee that's seeking that subpoena.
Speaker 2: So they all have their own individual rules about like
Speaker 2: whether you need a majority vote to even get a subpoena,
Speaker 2: or whether the chair of that committee is, you know,
Speaker 2: has the power to grant or request a subpoena.
Speaker 4: Right, I've read some of them know that it's a
Speaker 4: real downer to get a subpoena. Say, some congressional committees
Speaker 4: use that mascot from the nineteen eighty four Olympics, the Eagle,
Speaker 4: to come issue your.
Speaker 3: Papers to you.
Speaker 1: I don't remember that one.
Speaker 3: You don't remember that eagle.
Speaker 4: Now it's like a cartoon eagle from nineteen eighty four.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean all I can.
Speaker 2: I can't get past the Atlanta Olympics mascot. That's why
Speaker 2: I can't get back to nineteen eighty four?
Speaker 3: Was it? What's it? Or who's it?
Speaker 1: Oh? I don't even know.
Speaker 3: It was one of those too. What was that thing?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: It was a last last minute thing.
Speaker 1: What was the name it was?
Speaker 3: What's it? Or who's it? Was it?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: Yes, man, it was bad. I was out of town.
Speaker 2: I fled.
Speaker 3: You didn't miss anything.
Speaker 2: But I do remember watching the opening whatever they're called,
Speaker 2: the opening ceremonies, Opening ceremonies, right, and seeing the stainless
Speaker 2: steel pickup trucks driving around and just thinking, oh boy.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: And for those of you who are like, they've talked
Speaker 4: about this before, we have. Yeah, we have, and we're
Speaker 4: still that upset about it.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about it again in five more years.
Speaker 3: We haven't forgotten.
Speaker 1: Yeah, stainless steel pickup trucks. They haunt me. I have
Speaker 1: dreams about those trucks.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they're just circling you, playing striper at the loudest
Speaker 4: possible volume. Oh man, Okay, So we've got different kinds
Speaker 4: of subpoenas, but both of them apply to either courts
Speaker 4: of law or Congress. So there's one big question that
Speaker 4: most people who get a subpoena ask themselves the moment
Speaker 4: they're served the paper, and that is, can I ignore
Speaker 4: this thing?
Speaker 3: Do I have to do this right?
Speaker 4: What happens to me if I just pretend like I
Speaker 4: never got this? And that's really tough to do. I
Speaker 4: was reading about process servers and the people who are
Speaker 4: issuing the subpoena or the lawyer who's asking for the
Speaker 4: subpoena to say, they want some sort of proof that
Speaker 4: says you got that paper, so they have to. There's
Speaker 4: like certain rules and regulations to serving somebody with a subpoena,
Speaker 4: so it's really difficult to pretend like you're not, like
Speaker 4: you didn't get it, and a lot of people actually
Speaker 4: go to a tremendous amount of trouble to avoid being
Speaker 4: served a subpoena. They will like move around, they will
Speaker 4: pretend they're not home, they won't let anyone else answer
Speaker 4: the door because in some states you can leave it
Speaker 4: with a competent thirteen year old or eighteen year old.
Speaker 1: They'll stick their hands in their ears and go.
Speaker 3: La la la la la la.
Speaker 4: Right, exactly, they'll do a lot of stuff to keep
Speaker 4: from being served, but that's actually it will.
Speaker 3: Just delay being served.
Speaker 4: In the long run, you will still there's other remedies
Speaker 4: they can use. They can mail it to your house
Speaker 4: certified mail. And if the male person says this was
Speaker 4: dropped off, it made it to their house, that's enough.
Speaker 4: Or if you can say I took the numbers off
Speaker 4: my mailbox, what are you going to do now, chump.
Speaker 4: They can actually post an ad in the local legal
Speaker 4: organ the newspaper, and then that will be considered serving you.
Speaker 4: So either way, you're going to end up being considered
Speaker 4: to have received the subpoena eventually, and if you do,
Speaker 4: you probably shouldn't ignore it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it says here in this article, which
Speaker 2: most of this is from the House Stuff Works article
Speaker 2: about saboenas, but it says, you know, it's a lot
Speaker 2: easier if you just go right or produce the documents.
Speaker 2: But we'll cover here in a lot of this congressional
Speaker 2: oversight stuff that is not the route that people take
Speaker 2: generally in government.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I thought it was kind of an oversight
Speaker 4: to not say like, but also if somebody serves you
Speaker 4: with a subpoena, like go, you don't necessarily have to
Speaker 4: hire a lawyer, but at least consult with one, like
Speaker 4: get some legal advice, say this is what I got.
Speaker 4: You know, what should I do with this?
Speaker 3: Is this?
Speaker 4: You know, you know, there's a lot of questions that
Speaker 4: you should have answered before you just act on a subpoena.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know, when it comes to ignoring subpoenas,
Speaker 2: and that's what a lot.
Speaker 1: Of this will be about.
Speaker 2: Is what's going on with our government right now and
Speaker 2: previously and what happens if you defy Congress And is
Speaker 2: there any accountability for that or can you just sit
Speaker 2: on your hands say nope.
Speaker 1: But there have been some very.
Speaker 2: Famous cases in the past, you know, fifteen years or
Speaker 2: so where subpoenas have been ignored, starting well, not starting
Speaker 2: with but we can start with Eric Holder, Attorney General
Speaker 2: for Barack Obama.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was a big one.
Speaker 2: That was part of the Operation the Fast and Furious
Speaker 2: scandal scandal.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it was definitely a scandal. From what I remember,
Speaker 4: it involved like secret gun sales or else. Some guns
Speaker 4: were led out into the community to be traced to
Speaker 4: see who they went. To and one of them ended
Speaker 4: up being used to murder an ice officer, I believe well.
Speaker 2: Attorney General Eric Holder refused, under direction of Obama, to
Speaker 2: answer that subpoena, and he became the first sitting cabinet
Speaker 2: member to be voted in contempt of Congress.
Speaker 3: Oh was that right?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: And you know you're like, oh, what happens in well,
Speaker 2: three and a half years later a judge ruled that
Speaker 2: he did not have the right to defy Congress, and
Speaker 2: by that time there was a new Congress, and it
Speaker 2: was a mood point.
Speaker 4: That's a really big big thing to remember. Is like
Speaker 4: an eempt of Congress vote where you are supposedly in
Speaker 4: trouble for ignoring a subpoena, only lasts as long as
Speaker 4: that session of Congress.
Speaker 1: Unless the next session of Congress wants to pick it up.
Speaker 4: Yes, but then they have to hold another vote. And
Speaker 4: the chances that that the that there has been a
Speaker 4: change in leadership potentially in that Congress is you know,
Speaker 4: high enough that if you if you make it through
Speaker 4: that Congress, you know going into recess, you you're probably
Speaker 4: going to get away with it. And I mean that's
Speaker 4: par for the course. It wasn't just Eric Holder who
Speaker 4: got away with it. Harriet Myers, who was a White
Speaker 4: House counsel to George W.
Speaker 3: Bush.
Speaker 4: There was like a mass political firing of US attorneys.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and two thousand and eight yep.
Speaker 4: And she and I think chief of staff at the time,
Speaker 4: Joshua Bolton, were both held in contempt of Congress. And man,
Speaker 4: if you look up, like you know, follow up reporting
Speaker 4: on this stuff, it's like, you know, while it's going on,
Speaker 4: they're like they could face fines, jail time. Finally I
Speaker 4: found some follow up as like nothing nothing happened, Absolutely
Speaker 4: nothing happened. There was no legal ramifications, there were no
Speaker 4: personal ramifications. There was nothing happened whatsoever to Harriet Myers
Speaker 4: or Joshua Bolton or Eric Holder for just saying Congress,
Speaker 4: the United States Congress, go sit on it, yeah, which
Speaker 4: is essentially what you're saying when you ignore a subpoenas yeah.
Speaker 2: And because of this, you remember Representative darryl Isa probably
Speaker 2: by name. He was involved in trying to get Eric Holder,
Speaker 2: you know, in the room, and he was so mad
Speaker 2: he sponsored or intro to bill to strengthen subpoena enforcement power,
Speaker 2: and it died in the Senate, and before we I
Speaker 2: think we're about to take a break.
Speaker 1: Before we do that, though, we should.
Speaker 2: Mention that currently White House Counsel Don McGann has refused
Speaker 2: to testify or refused to answer his subpoena under direct
Speaker 2: order of Trump, and right now he's being sued by
Speaker 2: the House right of August.
Speaker 4: And he in particular provides an unusual situation because at
Speaker 4: least with Harriet Myers, or with Joshua Bolton, or with
Speaker 4: Eric Holder, when they were directed by the President at
Speaker 4: the time not to submit to that subpoena from Congress,
Speaker 4: they were part of the president's staff. Don McGann was
Speaker 4: instructed not to not to cooperate with the subpoena after
Speaker 4: he had already left civil service. He was no longer
Speaker 4: part of the executive branch. So that definitely makes it unusual.
Speaker 4: But if you're sitting there and your head is popping
Speaker 4: and you're saying, how wait, how this is Congress. How
Speaker 4: can a president just say just ignore that subpoena and
Speaker 4: people get away with it. There's actually a lot of
Speaker 4: case law that's been built over the centuries that kind
Speaker 4: of establishes that. And I say, Chuck, we take a break,
Speaker 4: and then we'll dive into that after this case.
Speaker 5: Law Josh.
Speaker 4: So Chuck, there's something about subpoenas, whether they're issued by
Speaker 4: Congress or by a court of law, when you get
Speaker 4: them that a lot of people don't realize they're negotiable. Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's one really big reason to hire a lawyer is
Speaker 4: because they it may be overly broad, it may be
Speaker 4: kind of a phishing expedition. It may put you at
Speaker 4: risk to come forward and give this testimony or to
Speaker 4: hand over these documents. And if you hire a lawyer
Speaker 4: and say, hey, these are the things I'm worried about,
Speaker 4: they can go and argue to the judge like, hey,
Speaker 4: how about we just limit this subpoena to these documents
Speaker 4: rather than everything on my client's hard drive. Or it's
Speaker 4: really a big hardship for my client to make it here,
Speaker 4: and the fifteen dollars a day that the court's paying
Speaker 4: him for coming to testify isn't actually going to cover it, So,
Speaker 4: you know, can we negotiate a higher fee or something
Speaker 4: like that. There's a lot of stuff that can be done,
Speaker 4: but this is a tactic that's also used with congressional subpoenas. Too,
Speaker 4: where say, like the executive branch will go, I think
Speaker 4: that this is a little overly broad, but maybe we
Speaker 4: could give you this document.
Speaker 3: Will that satisfy you?
Speaker 1: And then I go nope.
Speaker 4: Sometimes I say yes, though, and part of that negotiation
Speaker 4: comes out of this subpoena process. It's a response to it.
Speaker 4: But none of it would have any effect whatsoever if
Speaker 4: Congress didn't have any redress for enforcing its subpoenas. If
Speaker 4: somebody ignores it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, technically there are fines in jail time
Speaker 2: sort of looming. But the more I read about this stuff,
Speaker 2: especially when it comes to Congressional oversight, the more it
Speaker 2: became clear that none of that stuff really happens. It's
Speaker 2: all just dangled out there as a means to negotiate
Speaker 2: something with each other over a pretty long period of
Speaker 2: time usually for sure.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that Eric Holder thing was it was like four
Speaker 4: years before he finally handed over the file, and I
Speaker 4: think Congress had already gone out a session, you said,
Speaker 4: And it was basically just the whole thing had died down,
Speaker 4: which I think is basically the stalling tactic that people
Speaker 4: ignore subpoenas for like that's why they're doing it.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So technically, if you defy Congress, the committee that issued
Speaker 2: that subpoena is going to vote to issue a citation,
Speaker 2: a contempt citation, and then it's got to go to
Speaker 2: the full chamber to vote on it. And if that
Speaker 2: goes through and it passes, which it has before, then
Speaker 2: there are three basic ways that you can prosecute that.
Speaker 4: Charge, right, and each one is worthless. Yeah, pretty much
Speaker 4: like this is. We would never give official legal advice.
Speaker 4: First of all, we're not lawyers or even trained as lawyers.
Speaker 4: But from what I can tell, there's just nothing happens
Speaker 4: to you if you ignore a congressional subpoena. But most
Speaker 4: people respond to it because I feel like the further
Speaker 4: down the food chain you are, the more likely Congress
Speaker 4: is to do something in retaliation to you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, let's go through the three at least fine,
Speaker 2: if for no other reason than pure folly. So if
Speaker 2: they vote and that contempt citation goes through, it is
Speaker 2: then under the control of the executive branch. And you think,
Speaker 2: oh great the president or oh great the president, it's
Speaker 2: really neither. It is the Justice Department, which is part
Speaker 2: of the executive branch. It's up to them. To decide
Speaker 2: whether or not they're going to prosecute criminally, and they're
Speaker 2: going to say no. They're going to say and we'll
Speaker 2: talk a lot about executive privilege coming up, but they'll
Speaker 2: usually cite that and decline to prosecute, basically kind of saying,
Speaker 2: you know what, we don't get involved in this stuff.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: So that is specifically when it comes to subpoenaing something
Speaker 4: from the White House correct or the executive bridge. Now,
Speaker 4: if Congress is being ignored by, say like the owner
Speaker 4: of the Houston Astros, they can go to the DOJ
Speaker 4: and say, hey, the Houston Astros baseball team owner is
Speaker 4: ignoring a subpoena. We want you to go after the guy,
Speaker 4: and they'll go after the guy. It's when it's executive
Speaker 4: privilege that's being cited that the DOJ says, you know how,
Speaker 4: it's our jurisdiction to decide whether to prosecute this stuff.
Speaker 4: We're going to decline to do that because it's our
Speaker 4: own people, and we're just going to consider this an
Speaker 4: internal executive branch.
Speaker 2: Matter Number two is the civil judgment, right, and that's
Speaker 2: when you need the courts to basically enforce this. Go
Speaker 2: into court and saying we need your help to enforce
Speaker 2: this civil suit against somebody who's stiffed us.
Speaker 4: Right, Like, you know how you can go arrest somebody
Speaker 4: and put him in jail? Can you do that on
Speaker 4: our behalf? Basically?
Speaker 1: But this is super slow, like turtle like slow.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: But I think the idea is that the thought that
Speaker 4: maybe somewhere a couple of years down the line, there's
Speaker 4: going to be a judgment against you where you're going
Speaker 4: to have to pay one hundred thousand dollars to Congress
Speaker 4: or something like that, or spend like twelve months in
Speaker 4: jail will get you to the table to negotiate you know,
Speaker 4: what documents they actually want or what testimony they want.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just leverage, right. So the third one is
Speaker 2: something that isn't used anymore.
Speaker 1: Really.
Speaker 2: It's called inherent contempt power. It was last yused in
Speaker 2: nineteen thirty five. And this is you know, this is
Speaker 2: sort of the jail thing. And while there is no
Speaker 2: capital jail, they do have a holding cell.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and like the sergeant at arms of the Senate
Speaker 4: or the House, depending on who's issuing the subpoena and
Speaker 4: who voted to told you in contempt an armed officer
Speaker 4: of the Congress will show up and say you're under arrest.
Speaker 4: Congress says you're under arrest, you have to come with me, or,
Speaker 4: as has been kind of boo bounced around lately by
Speaker 4: Democrats in the House, replacing the idea of jailing somebody,
Speaker 4: of arresting and jailing them with a much much stiffer
Speaker 4: fine than people have traditionally faced, something more on the
Speaker 4: order of I think between twenty five and two hundred
Speaker 4: and fifty thousand dollars I think a day actually for
Speaker 4: ignoring this kind of stuff, which we guess that would
Speaker 4: get people moving if they actually go through.
Speaker 2: With that, yeah, I would think. So hit them in
Speaker 2: the pocketbook, yeah, I.
Speaker 4: Mean that hard's and it pluses the government too. So
Speaker 4: it's like, hey, you know these tax credits you're getting,
Speaker 4: were taking those away and this tax return that you
Speaker 4: were expecting, we're going to hang on to that Like
Speaker 4: that's this is where they could actually do something.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 2: If it's not a congressional subpoena, if it's just like
Speaker 2: we're talking about a regular court subpoena, it all depends
Speaker 2: and what jurisdiction you're in, and the presiding Chudge that's
Speaker 2: on that case.
Speaker 4: Yes, but again, because you can be arrested as a
Speaker 4: matter of routine course of a court, you really should
Speaker 4: respond at least to a subpoena or else. You know,
Speaker 4: the chances of something happening to you from a court
Speaker 4: of law are much higher than Congress apparently.
Speaker 1: Sure, so can we talk about case law?
Speaker 4: Yes, finally we got all that boring stuff out of
Speaker 4: the way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this first one is kind of interesting. And the
Speaker 2: way the judiciary works in this country is just super
Speaker 2: fascinating to me. The older I get, the more I
Speaker 2: read about it. I'm not becoming a legal wonk by.
Speaker 3: Any means illegal legal, but I get.
Speaker 1: It, Like, you know, I get it that people are
Speaker 1: super into this kind of thing.
Speaker 3: I hadn't realized you've gotten into the judiciary.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's pretty fascinating.
Speaker 4: What got you into it? Just like news following the
Speaker 4: news or something or uh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's just sort of reading about a case
Speaker 2: like in this case from eighteen hundred, and then you
Speaker 2: know precedent and what that means, right, and when it
Speaker 2: shouldn't matter and should matter.
Speaker 3: Like the one from eighteen hundred you're talking about is
Speaker 3: US v. Cooper.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Thomas Cooper, who was a scientist and an attorney
Speaker 2: and a thorn in the side of President John Adams
Speaker 2: right in a big way.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So, in I think seventeen ninety eight, Yeah, the US
Speaker 4: passed the Sedition Act, which said that it's illegal to
Speaker 4: criticize the US government.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Unfortunately, when Thomas Jefferson came into office, he said, we're
Speaker 4: gonna kind of do away with that and keep it
Speaker 4: away forever as much as we can. But there was
Speaker 4: a guy named Thomas Cooper, who, like you said, was
Speaker 4: a thorn in the side of John Adams, and he
Speaker 4: was arrested and prosecuted during a time when the Sedition
Speaker 4: Act was still in effect, and he lost his case.
Speaker 4: But the way that it relates to subpoenas an ignoring
Speaker 4: subpoena is specifically the executive branch ignoring subpoenas. Is that
Speaker 4: all the way back in eighteen hundred, when the United
Speaker 4: States was just a couple of decades old, this guy,
Speaker 4: Thomas Cooper, tried to subpoena John Adams to come testify
Speaker 4: as part of this case, and the court said, we
Speaker 4: don't really subpoena presidents we've decided. Yeah, and that's not
Speaker 4: a precedent for the rest of history. It basically said
Speaker 4: presidents are accepted from the goings on in normal court stuff,
Speaker 4: even when they're directly related to the case.
Speaker 3: They don't have to.
Speaker 2: Come right, But that same case is said, but you
Speaker 2: can subpoena it's someone from Congress.
Speaker 3: That's a big one too.
Speaker 2: That was a big one Cooper. It didn't work out
Speaker 2: for Cooper, like you said, he was convicted. So none
Speaker 2: of that mattered except for establishing this president president president.
Speaker 3: You got it in this case. You could say it
Speaker 3: either way.
Speaker 1: I guess. So. So that moves us on to seven
Speaker 1: years later US v. Burr.
Speaker 2: This is John Marshall. Chief Justice John Marshall headed this
Speaker 2: one up and basically this had to deal with President
Speaker 2: Thomas Jefferson saying, hey, they want you to come to
Speaker 2: provide these documents.
Speaker 1: It was a Doozy's teacom, right, du says, c's doc's
Speaker 1: Ducy's teacum.
Speaker 2: And Jefferson was like, hey, here are some of those
Speaker 2: documents that you want, and they're like, but where the
Speaker 2: rest of them? He was like, you know, I'm not
Speaker 2: going to give you those and I'm also not going
Speaker 2: to show up because you know what, I got to
Speaker 2: be presidenting.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm the executive branch is too powerful and too
Speaker 4: or no, too important. It's the only branch that's supposed
Speaker 4: to be open twenty four seven, three sixty five. Yeah,
Speaker 4: and I just can't get away, like I'm my work
Speaker 4: is too important to come be part of this, and
Speaker 4: that gets think.
Speaker 1: Gets less and less able to prove these days, I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: for sure.
Speaker 4: Like you could take off, I have a day, right,
Speaker 4: you got a BlackBerry, you can definitely email, keep tabs
Speaker 4: on work while you're gone.
Speaker 3: But yeah, so I thought the same thing too.
Speaker 4: That does not hold water, but it does set a
Speaker 4: president for the president, like you were saying too in
Speaker 4: those two cases basically say together again, the president doesn't
Speaker 4: have to come be part of this, and executive privilege
Speaker 4: is I guess where this came from from this particular
Speaker 4: case where it's saying like, no, the president doesn't have
Speaker 4: to have anything to do with this, and the president's
Speaker 4: documents or the president's business and can't be subpoenaed because
Speaker 4: we're going to call this executive privilege.
Speaker 2: Right, And there are five basically five types generally of
Speaker 2: executive privilege that have been used thus far. One is
Speaker 2: presidential communications. Number two is the deliberative process. Number three
Speaker 2: is attorney client communications, Big one. Fourth one is law
Speaker 2: enforcement investigations. And the fifth one is anything that's sensitive
Speaker 2: in terms of military or national security or diplomatic relations,
Speaker 2: that kind of thing.
Speaker 4: And that's the one in particular that has been upheld
Speaker 4: over the years.
Speaker 3: It's the idea that.
Speaker 4: Like, there are secrets that the White House has that
Speaker 4: it just need to be kept or else people are
Speaker 4: going to lose their lives or else diplomatic ties are
Speaker 4: going to be upset, that kind of stuff, and so
Speaker 4: those should be protected under executive privilege. But the rest
Speaker 4: of the stuff has been subject to scrutiny over the years,
Speaker 4: for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because obviously an executive a president is going to
Speaker 1: try and draw that privilege as broadly as possible.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, for sure.
Speaker 4: And that's especially been the case ever since Nixon onward,
Speaker 4: at least, where there's this idea called the unitary executive theory,
Speaker 4: which is basically, like, you know, these are separate branches
Speaker 4: of government, and the executive branch is in charge of
Speaker 4: everything to do with the executive branch has, it's none
Speaker 4: of Congress's business. And the executive is basically this extraordinarily
Speaker 4: powerful single person, and that's been attempted to be invoked
Speaker 4: and prove time and time again in throwing off Congressional oversight.
Speaker 4: And that seems to be kind of what we're in
Speaker 4: the midst of right now is a really big test
Speaker 4: of this unitary executive theory in saying, like, no, not
Speaker 4: only just the president, but the entire president staff and
Speaker 4: in fact, the entire executive branch can ignore subpoenas from
Speaker 4: Congress because Congress doesn't have any authority over the executive branch.
Speaker 4: And that's kind of what we're witnessing right now. And
Speaker 4: on the one hand, well, really there's really just one hand.
Speaker 4: The great value of having an executive like almost a
Speaker 4: well a unitary executive is that if you're a vested
Speaker 4: interest or a very powerful group, you've only got one
Speaker 4: person to change over to your side, rather than five hundred.
Speaker 3: Of them, you know what I mean. Yeah, So it's
Speaker 3: very dangerous.
Speaker 4: It also very much flies in the face of the
Speaker 4: three branches of government and the checks and balances that
Speaker 4: each one's supposed to have over the other. Yes, because
Speaker 4: part of Congress's role is what's called congressional oversight.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 4: That says we're responsible for making sure you're not getting
Speaker 4: out of control the president. The executive branch has veto
Speaker 4: power saying Congress, you guys are nuts, this is no
Speaker 4: law that should be passed.
Speaker 3: I'm going to say no to this law. And then
Speaker 3: the judiciary has judicial review.
Speaker 4: They get to say this law is unjust or this
Speaker 4: executive agency's action is illegal. And by doing this, these
Speaker 4: three branches keep one another from getting too strong. And
Speaker 4: the unitary executive theory flies in the face of that
Speaker 4: and says, no, the executive branch is more powerful than.
Speaker 3: All of them. The other two don't have checks over them,
Speaker 3: and let's just see what happens from here.
Speaker 1: That's right. Should we talk about Watergate?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: So everyone, we should do a full episode on Watergate.
Speaker 2: I think I've said that before. I agree, but everyone
Speaker 2: knows what happened there. President Nixon was involved in some
Speaker 2: hinky activities and congressional committees. There was one special prosecutor
Speaker 2: in particular named Archibald Cox, who said, wait a minute,
Speaker 2: you've got these secret tapes. You've been taping people in
Speaker 2: the Oval office turn them over. Here's a subpoena. We
Speaker 2: demand that you turn that over along with some other stuff.
Speaker 2: And Nan said, you demand, and we want you to
Speaker 2: come here and testify as well. And of course Nixon
Speaker 2: was like, I don't think that stuff's going to happen.
Speaker 2: Here you go, here are some of these tapes. Just
Speaker 2: ignore all the parts where it seems like it was
Speaker 2: heavily edited and sounds real funny because someone who was
Speaker 2: just in the room is no longer in the room,
Speaker 2: and there are non sequiturs all over the place.
Speaker 4: It's like the videotape of the guy who got the
Speaker 4: high score in Donkey Kong.
Speaker 3: Right, yeah, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: But executive privilege was what he claimed he was protected by.
Speaker 2: So this went to the Supreme Court in nineteen seventy
Speaker 2: four with United States v. Nixon, and Chief Justice Burger's
Speaker 2: opinion cited everything from Justice Marshall's Marbury v. Madison to
Speaker 2: the one we just talked about, United States v. BurrH
Speaker 2: And basically, they're walking a fine line there with the
Speaker 2: judiciary because they're saying, listen, the president needs to be
Speaker 2: confidential and protected when executing these duties, these constitutional duties
Speaker 2: on the one hand, but on the other hand, due
Speaker 2: process of law is an important thing and that's what
Speaker 2: we're in charge of. So they kind of ended up
Speaker 2: wanting to protect each of the branch's needs.
Speaker 4: It seems like, yeah, and I think they did a
Speaker 4: very good job. And the fact that it was unanimous.
Speaker 4: I think Rehnquist was involved with some of the people involved,
Speaker 4: so he recused himself from voting, but it was unanimous
Speaker 4: eight to zero vote saying no, you got to hand
Speaker 4: the tapes over because we don't think that you're just
Speaker 4: trying to protect like intelligent secrets or military secrets or
Speaker 4: diplomatic secrets. We think you're just basically using the cover
Speaker 4: of executive privilege to cover your own behind exactly, and
Speaker 4: that does not supersede due process in a court of law,
Speaker 4: which is going on over here with the trials of
Speaker 4: these guys who broke into the Watergate. So you got
Speaker 4: to hand over the tapes, and in doing so, like
Speaker 4: you said, he cited another case Marbury v. Madison, And
Speaker 4: that's a really really important case in here too, which
Speaker 4: I think we should talk about starting now.
Speaker 2: Well, I wanted to mention another quick thing before you
Speaker 2: dive into Marbury another case usv.
Speaker 1: At and T.
Speaker 2: This just basically laid out that the courts are only
Speaker 2: going to get involved if everyone really tried in good
Speaker 2: faith to work it out beforehand.
Speaker 1: Basically said, we're the last stop here.
Speaker 2: Don't just go run into the Supreme Court or the
Speaker 2: courts in general to figure this stuff out for you.
Speaker 4: Right, Although I think the Constitution says that the Supreme
Speaker 4: Court are the ones who are supposed to be running
Speaker 4: the show when it comes to like a high enough official.
Speaker 4: A case regarding a high enough official, Oh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all At and T.
Speaker 2: The case said was you have to really try to
Speaker 2: work it out amongst yourself before it even gets to us.
Speaker 3: Oh gotcha. Okay, yeah, I gotcha. I see, I see
Speaker 3: what you're saying. Yeah yeah.
Speaker 1: So good faith, of course, is broadly defined too.
Speaker 4: So in Marborie versus Madison, that one basically said, hey,
Speaker 4: there's this one component here.
Speaker 3: Yes, the.
Speaker 4: We've established that the legislative branch Congress can issue subpoenas
Speaker 4: and that the executive branch can exert executive privilege and
Speaker 4: say no toe some subpoenas under some cases. But we're
Speaker 4: also going to say In US v. Nixon in nineteen
Speaker 4: seventy four, that the court can say, no, your right
Speaker 4: to secrecy is overshadowed by a right to do process
Speaker 4: in most cases.
Speaker 3: But the one that really says at the center of.
Speaker 4: This is the judiciary, and that the judiciary has a
Speaker 4: right to decide cases where the legislative and executive branches
Speaker 4: are in dispute. Is this Marbury versus Madison case from
Speaker 4: I think eighteen oh four, and it was, from what
Speaker 4: I understand, a masterstroke of legal eagleness by Justice John Marshall.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So is the long and short of that one that
Speaker 2: Secretary of Saint James Madison he was trying to withhold
Speaker 2: the commission of William Marbury.
Speaker 1: Was that the case?
Speaker 4: Yeah, because the outgoing Adams had packed the courts with
Speaker 4: friendly judges, the commissions had not all been mailed out,
Speaker 4: and Madison was withholding some.
Speaker 2: And they basically said, listen, man, you can't do this
Speaker 2: like it is your job. You shall commission all the
Speaker 2: officers of the United States. It's like right there in
Speaker 2: black and white, and you lose, right.
Speaker 3: So that was one part of it.
Speaker 4: But what Marshall figured out and what made this a
Speaker 4: master stroke of legal legalness, is that the there was
Speaker 4: a something called a writ of mandamus, which basically says
Speaker 4: you have to do this, which had been granted to
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court in the like an Act in seventeen
Speaker 4: eighty nine. Marshall said, so, yes, Madison has to give
Speaker 4: this over like, this is just part of his duties,
Speaker 4: and he's following a law that Congress made, so he's
Speaker 4: subject to that law as a minister of the government.
Speaker 4: But at the same time, the rit of mandamus power
Speaker 4: that's a Supreme Court has been given is unconstitutional. We're
Speaker 4: not in a position to issue a rid of mandamus
Speaker 4: because under the Constitution we're not given that right. And
Speaker 4: so in doing that, he established the Supreme Court as
Speaker 4: the interpreter of what law is constitutional and what isn't right.
Speaker 4: And he did that by saying, this law that gives
Speaker 4: us this amazing power is unconstitutional. So he did it
Speaker 4: by taking power away from the Supreme Court. But in
Speaker 4: doing so, he gave the Supreme Court a tremendous a
Speaker 4: tremendous advantage over the centuries in interpreting what law is
Speaker 4: constitutional and what isn't and placing itself as the arbiter
Speaker 4: of disputes between the legislative branch and the executive branch.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which is I mean, that's a lot of what
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court decides is constitutionality.
Speaker 3: And it all comes from that eighteen and oh four case.
Speaker 1: Landmark Legal Legal. Should we take another break?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 2: Man, all right, we'll take another break and talk a
Speaker 2: little bit about a little bit more about Nixon and
Speaker 2: what some other presidents have done when slapped with a
Speaker 2: sabena right after that.
Speaker 4: Jaw.
Speaker 2: So we all know what happened to Nixon, what the
Speaker 2: Justice did rule that, Hey, dude, you got to comply
Speaker 2: with this Deucey's tectim here and you got to turn
Speaker 2: over these tapes.
Speaker 1: So Nixon, uh turned over tapes.
Speaker 4: He did, and it all worked out in the end.
Speaker 4: Everybody's like, this is what you were protecting. This is fine, man,
Speaker 4: stay president for a couple more terms. And he did,
Speaker 4: and the world was a better place.
Speaker 1: For it, that's right. Flash forward to uh to Bill Clinton.
Speaker 3: That was okay.
Speaker 1: So he said, hey, listen, man.
Speaker 3: What goes on and that's much better.
Speaker 2: What happens in the Oval office stays in the oval office.
Speaker 2: Executive privilege. They're like even that stuff. And he said, well,
Speaker 2: you know, it's it's his executive privilege. Harika Panke falls
Speaker 2: under executive privileg So he said, I have executive unity,
Speaker 2: I have that privilege, and neither me nor my aides
Speaker 2: have to respond to these subpoenas. And then he fell
Speaker 2: into line eventually.
Speaker 3: Due Gingrich got him into line.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, and largely because of US v. Nixon.
Speaker 2: They said, you know what, you can't stand by this
Speaker 2: broad executive privilege, stand behind this wall that you've built.
Speaker 1: You're going to have to comply. And he did eventually right.
Speaker 4: Which is traditionally what happens, like the Congress issues subpoenas,
Speaker 4: is an executive branch ignores it. The Congress holds the
Speaker 4: executive branch and contempt, and the judiciary comes in and
Speaker 4: almost always says, no, you're over exerting your executive privilege
Speaker 4: to what they're saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which you know that gives me hope because in
Speaker 2: the past president has been set that due process wins
Speaker 2: out over executive privilege kind of across the board, it
Speaker 2: seems like, but that that.
Speaker 4: Only holds as long as two things are upheld. One
Speaker 4: that the Supreme Court is an independent body, regardless of
Speaker 4: who appointed the judges, and then two if the as
Speaker 4: long as the executive branch recognizes the authority of the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: This is where we are starting.
Speaker 4: Like some people can see far enough along this horizon
Speaker 4: that hey, this path we're heading down right now, there's
Speaker 4: a point where we could reach where they could be.
Speaker 4: There could be a Supreme Court decision that says, yes,
Speaker 4: executive branch, you have to hand over these aids for testimony.
Speaker 4: They have to come testify about you know, Russian interference
Speaker 4: in the twenty sixteen election or this call between the
Speaker 4: president and the Ukrainian president, and the executive branch still
Speaker 4: says no. And that is the point that everyone says,
Speaker 4: we have no idea what happens?
Speaker 3: Then we have no idea.
Speaker 4: Do you go arrest these you know, the secretary of
Speaker 4: the Treasury, Do you go arrest these cabinet members? This
Speaker 4: has never been done before, Like what remedy do you
Speaker 4: really have? And that's where that's where we are with
Speaker 4: testing out this unitary executive theory. How far can you
Speaker 4: kick the the kind of unwritten rules of the constitution. Well,
Speaker 4: there's lots of written rules with constitution, but also like
Speaker 4: the the unwritten rules and procedures that kind of have
Speaker 4: have guided all of this for so long. What happens
Speaker 4: when those things just stop being recognized as valid?
Speaker 3: What do you do?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 2: I don't know because in the in the past, through
Speaker 2: our history, and this is on both sides of the
Speaker 2: of the Isle, Democrats and Republicans have always not successfully,
Speaker 2: but they've always tried to argue that court should not
Speaker 2: get in the subpoena battles and should not get involved
Speaker 2: with this executive privileged claim right.
Speaker 4: And in particular, Trump's latest Trump's Legal Council's latest position,
Speaker 4: which I think came out in September of this year,
Speaker 4: is it's a doozy.
Speaker 3: It basically takes And here's here's.
Speaker 4: Something we need to remember here, Like this is not
Speaker 4: brand new with Donald Trump, right, Like if you if
Speaker 4: you can't stand Donald Trump, this is this is his
Speaker 4: White House. His administration is building on stuff that previous
Speaker 4: presidents have built on both Democrats and Republicans alike. There
Speaker 4: has been a real push, basically since Nixon, to to
Speaker 4: instill as much power into the presidency and the executive
Speaker 4: branch as possible, and this is an extreme version of that,
Speaker 4: but it's still kind of following the same path. But
Speaker 4: what they're what they're doing is more aggressive than what
Speaker 4: previous administrations have done. And they're basically saying saying this,
Speaker 4: if you subpoena us the executive branch, if you the
Speaker 4: Congress subpoena one of our people, any of our people,
Speaker 4: for any reason whatsoever, the President can say, no, do
Speaker 4: not respond to that subpoena, do not go before Congress,
Speaker 4: do not hand over those documents. I'm the president, I'm
Speaker 4: ordering you to. Congress can issue a rid of contempt
Speaker 4: or find the person in contempt, but that's it.
Speaker 3: That's where it ends. Because the president can say, well,
Speaker 3: this is an inter branch dispute between the legislative branch
Speaker 3: and the executive branch. And because the.
Speaker 4: Judiciary can't be drafted or shouldn't be drafted in to
Speaker 4: solve these disputes, that's all it will remain is an
Speaker 4: inner branch dispute, and the Supreme Court really has no
Speaker 4: purview in deciding these cases. And when you have that,
Speaker 4: then that means that the executive branch has been removed
Speaker 4: from the oversight of law law. It becomes above the law,
Speaker 4: The law no longer applies to it, and so whatever
Speaker 4: the president wants to do. Whatever the President directs his
Speaker 4: or her agencies to do is de facto legal, just
Speaker 4: because the president and the executive branch are not subject
Speaker 4: to the laws of the land, including rulings by the
Speaker 4: highest court in the United States. That's what the latest
Speaker 4: argument is sting us up for.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, this is what the Justice Department.
Speaker 2: There was a great article in the Washington Post by
Speaker 2: Harry Littman called the Justice Department's outlandish and arrogant position
Speaker 2: on congressional subpoenas, And this is from the article. It said,
Speaker 2: according to the Justice Department, there is no constitutional or
Speaker 2: statutory basis for a congressional committee to try to enforce
Speaker 2: his subpoenas in the federal courts where the executive branch
Speaker 2: has decided not to do so.
Speaker 1: Right, So basically, yeah, they said no, and so they
Speaker 1: said no.
Speaker 4: And all of this arose from an opinion regarding Trump's
Speaker 4: tax returns, I believe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's sort of where the whole thing got started.
Speaker 4: Yeah, where the Treasury Secretary, Stephen Mnushin said no, we're
Speaker 4: not doing that, and Congress said, well, we're holding you
Speaker 4: in contempt. And then the Legal Office of Legal counsel
Speaker 4: from the White House issued this opinion, and I mean
Speaker 4: it's a doozy, but it's also saying like, what are
Speaker 4: you guys going to do?
Speaker 3: What can you do? And that's that's the that's the
Speaker 3: big question now.
Speaker 2: Well, and it makes you wonder what would have happened
Speaker 2: if darryl Isa's bill had gone through? That makes subpoenas
Speaker 2: super enforceable, right, because you know, we've seen it on
Speaker 2: again on both sides of the aisle where one one
Speaker 2: political party will get mad and and vote something in
Speaker 2: that will come back to sting them later on.
Speaker 1: Right on the hind end, it is.
Speaker 4: But also you also can't help but wonder, like will
Speaker 4: like is a republicans loyalty to Congress greater than the
Speaker 4: Republican's loyalty to the executive branch. It's like, you know,
Speaker 4: in any restaurant, there's tension between the white staff and
Speaker 4: the kitchen staff, but they're all working at the same restaurant.
Speaker 4: They're all trying to do the same thing, which is
Speaker 4: get high quality, nourishing meals out to the patrons who
Speaker 4: are citizens like you and me, Right, but there's still tension.
Speaker 4: You're not doing it fast enough. Or you you burn
Speaker 4: these fries or something like that. But we benefit from
Speaker 4: that tension, We the patrons of this restaurant that we
Speaker 4: call America.
Speaker 2: That's right, Well, what happened the end of the day,
Speaker 2: Everyone just goes behind the restaurant and smokes a joint
Speaker 2: by the dumpster.
Speaker 4: You know, maybe that would make our Congress or our
Speaker 4: government work more efficiently if the executive branch and the
Speaker 4: legislative branch and the judicial branch all got together and
Speaker 4: burned a dooby together by the grease s trap, right exactly.
Speaker 4: I don't even remember what my analogy was meant to insert.
Speaker 4: But we it's fine, but we like we are witnessing
Speaker 4: some historical stuff right now that that is not normal
Speaker 4: at all. I mean, like from water stuff and that
Speaker 4: I'm not even relating to impeachment proceedings. I'm just saying, like,
Speaker 4: this level of ignoring congressional subpoenas may be unprecedented, and
Speaker 4: if not, then the closest historical president we have is
Speaker 4: the Watergate scandal. Yeah, but I think Congress is one
Speaker 4: recourse to say, that's fine, that's fine, minution, you just
Speaker 4: ignore us. We're going over here as Congress, and we
Speaker 4: are altering this our ability to jail people to say no, actually,
Speaker 4: we can find you two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 4: a day and we will do it. That could be
Speaker 4: the leverage that gets people to actually comply with these subpoenas.
Speaker 4: But we'll find out, because if Congress has to actually
Speaker 4: pass a law to do that, the president has veto
Speaker 4: power over that well.
Speaker 2: And there are also all sorts of other things have
Speaker 2: nothing to do with this, that Congress uses as leverage
Speaker 2: or negotiation tactics, like, hey, do you want us to
Speaker 2: push through some of these appointees or should we just
Speaker 2: keep stalling forever? All kinds of that stuff is on
Speaker 2: the table. But when you have a president that comes
Speaker 2: out in January and says, you know what, I don't
Speaker 2: mind stall all you want. I like the term acting
Speaker 2: because that gives me more leeway. Then all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: that's not leverage anymore.
Speaker 3: You got anything else?
Speaker 1: No, I'm very curious to see what happens with this
Speaker 1: McGan case. Probably nothing, I am too.
Speaker 3: Will it be the crumbling of our democracy? Who knows?
Speaker 3: We'll find out in a few years.
Speaker 4: If you want to know more about subpoenas, we'll just
Speaker 4: go look it up and if you get a subpoena yourself.
Speaker 3: Get a lawyer. Don't be stupid. And since I said
Speaker 3: don't be stupid, friends, it's time for a listener. Mayw.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna this is about Obama's healthcare. I got a
Speaker 2: bunch of stuff about this. I didn't realize I made
Speaker 2: a prediction. Oh okay, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, that one's
Speaker 2: kind of been sitting in the in the coffers. Okay, guys,
Speaker 2: about fifteen months ago I start of my journey through
Speaker 2: the stuff.
Speaker 1: You should know.
Speaker 2: Archives have been on the steady campaign about twelve to
Speaker 2: sixteen episodes a week.
Speaker 3: That's healthy.
Speaker 1: Wow, why I'm writing though?
Speaker 2: Ten years ago Chuck made a bold prediction and the rumors,
Speaker 2: the myths and truths behind Obama's healthcare plan episodes.
Speaker 1: Didn't we do like four of those?
Speaker 3: We did? Yeah? I think we did four.
Speaker 2: You're right, But this one was specifically about that episode, Chuck,
Speaker 2: I said, call me in ten years if there are
Speaker 2: no more private insurance companies, because that was one of
Speaker 2: the big knocks on it. It's like, this is going
Speaker 2: to do away with private insurance, and I'll buy you
Speaker 2: a beer Chuck legitimately said I'm on record, and he
Speaker 2: extended the bet to anyone out there. Now, that statement
Speaker 2: was more of a gentleman's bet than a legal promise, however,
Speaker 2: that is more binding in my opinion. Nonetheless, I would
Speaker 2: like to congratulate you, Chuck. I was getting worried there
Speaker 2: for a second on the expiration of that term and
Speaker 2: that promisory statement. That could have been a pretty pricey liability.
Speaker 2: That things turned out little differently a.
Speaker 3: Million Chuck, every single one of our listeners would have
Speaker 3: written in and asked for it. I know.
Speaker 1: That is from Jack Simmons.
Speaker 4: Nice going, Jack, and welcome to the club. We're glad
Speaker 4: you've found us, and even more so that you like us,
Speaker 4: so we'll do our best.
Speaker 2: To keep it up for you and everybody else that
Speaker 2: emails a couple of months, although he's probably forgotten about it.
Speaker 3: Sorry, that's right, he's moved on to podsave America. That's right.
Speaker 4: Well, if you want to get in touch with us,
Speaker 4: like Jack did, you can go on to stuff youshould
Speaker 4: know dot com check out our social links there. You
Speaker 4: can also send us an email, wrap it up, spank
Speaker 4: it on the bottom and send it off to stuff
Speaker 4: podcast at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 1: Stuff you Should Know is a production of iHeartRadio. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.