They just blew that one off too...

House (for Representatives) or Senate (for Senators) because of the interpretation of the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause. Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 states:

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

There is substantial USSC precedent dating back to 1881 that congressional immunity extends well beyond seemingly narrow speeches and and debates.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-3-3/ALDE_00013302/

I don't think Hunter Biden is employed by the executive branch. He is a civilian citizen just like Navarro.

If the DOJ has completed its investigation, then do they have to share what they found? Fanni Willis has refused to send documents gym jockstrap asked for, because they are part of her active investigation. Seems like DOJ would have the same discretion?

But I'm not a lawyer or judge.

but Fani Willis is conducting a Georgia STATE investigation/ prosecution. As such, I don't think the U.S. congress holds jurisdiction over her documents.

and just doing to wield political power. But I guess that's not relevant.

Given the reactions to things not flattering of Joe Biden or the party.

It's an eye opener. I wondered if the complaints about Hunter not honoring subpoenas were legit. MAGAts throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall.

judge doesn't believe that there are any differences between the case of a political operative refusing to appear in a case about the worst criminal attack on the country since the Civil War and a subpoena issued to investigating attorneys while a Special Counsel is in place for the case involving relatively minor tax matters and a false entry on a gun purchase form.

One might ask if this judge sees all things as equal then how is a judge or prosecutor even necessary since, in the world of the judge, it's just a matter of plugging in the actions and accusations and spitting out an expected judgement. Replace judges and prosecutors with computers seems to be the conclusion that can be drawn from the judge's "all things are equal" rant.

Insurrection equals questions about a tax underpayment/income reporting violation in the eyes of this highly offended judge. No possible attempts to interfere with the DOJ Special Counsel in this ongoing case possibly entered her mind. So fine then, Judge Ana Reyes, let's be sure to give all organized crime cases, drug kingpin cases, terrorist cases etc. the unending ability to subpoena the DOJ lawyers and investigators in their ongoing cases and try to use any and all methods and twisting information to discredit those same cases and investigations.

I know what I just said sounds extreme but heaven forbid anybody come into the court of Judge Ana Reyes and expect analysis and understanding of differences rather than just blind equivalence.

Last edited Sun Apr 7, 2024, 08:05 AM - Edit history (1)

They decide whether the issue complies with the law.

“BUT BOBBY GOT TO DO IT!!!” isn't the basis for our legal system.

all situations are not "one size fits all" and judges decide and weigh circumstances all the time with regard to applicability, circumstance and effect. This judge is wrong to treat the subpoenas equally in these 2 very different cases because one is intended to harass and attack an active investigation. You don't allow Al Capone to endlessly subpoena those investigating/prosecuting his case during the investigation/prosecution. It is not allowed to make prosecutors into witnesses unless you have a great deal of basis to do require their testimony. In the Biden case multiple DOJ statements have refuted that there was any interference or restriction with the investigation. Even the Special Counsel himself said so. The party issuing the subpoena is on a fishing expedition and that is impermissible abuse of subpoena powers. You don't get to go on wild fishing expeditions or campaigns of harassment by way of subpoenas.

In the case of Navarro there was a good deal of basis for the subpoena based on the evidence and testimony. It is absolutely standard that prosecutors/investigators do not give testimony/evidence about an active case they are involved in unless it would be requested by the trial judge which would be rare. The same here and the same people who are requesting the subpoena are the same ones trying to do the same thing to Fani Willis. The subpoenas are intended to interfere with the legal cases the prosecutors have brought and the ongoing investigations of both.