- Messages
- 1,569
The best part of this is Eric at the end.
Epstein Files | Ghislaine Maxwell
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 2K
- Views: 74K
- Politics
Eric was born in 1984, so he would have been a minor himself for much of the Epstein client list period.
sringwal
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,605
theel4life
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,115
Wow
- Messages
- 29,131
- Messages
- 29,131
Not the Epstein files, of course, just this new interview that strangely coincided with rules being overridden to move her to Club Fed (for a start).
- Messages
- 29,131
Most of the info
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,639
I'm not really sure how congressional subpoenas work, but surely a person receiving a subpoena would have the opportunity to quash it, perhaps on relevance grounds.
If this were a judicial proceeding, most of those subpoenas would be quashed for lack of relevance. I suspect that Lynch, Holder, Barr and Gonzales will all claim privilege. Garland should just give them the finger.
- Messages
- 29,131
Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975)
Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund
supreme.justia.com
These decisions don’t leave a ton of room to get a court to quash a Congressional subpoena.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,639
The concurrence in Eastland seems to think there's some room. There has to be some room: if a subcommittee issued 100,000 subpoenas, surely the court would wonder if there is a legitimate legislative purpose.
Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975)
Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund
These decisions don’t leave a ton of room to get a court to quash a Congressional subpoena.
I know they are more open-ended than judicial subpoenas, and maybe the answer is that none of the people on that subpoena list could quash.
