Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cascade
I am pretty sure that defiance of a subpoena is punished by contempt (fine and or jail) rather than impeachment in this case. She serves at the President's pleasure....
Either way it won't be pretty, if it comes to that.
You can bet there will be a "Motion to quash the subpoena" filed by her lawyers first.
No, all federal office holders are subject to impeachment, even district court judges. This whole "pleasure of the president" is talk radio bullshit. She serves if she is confirmed by the Senate. The Constitution also makes no provision that says they can actually be fired, for that matter, it has just become customary for them to resign when asked to do so by the President.
Motions to quash etc were filed during the Watergate era, and all were resolved in very short time, always against those who wished it quashed. Since this is simply Watergate -style stonewalling (what does she have to hide?) I am sure it will go the same way.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address