So Donald Trump was summoned. Here’s what’s next:

Former President Donald Trump is being subpoenaed for his involvement in the January 1 incident. June 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol Uprising. Brendan Smialowski/AFP hide via Getty Images Caption toggle caption Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images Former President Donald Trump faces subpoenas in connection with charges involving him on January 1. June 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol Uprising. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images Donald Trump is not known to cooperate in investigations targeting himself or his own business. So now the parliamentary committee is January. The June 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol unanimously decided to summon him. You should be wondering what’s next for the former president. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a member of the House Election Committee for Democrats, told NPR on Friday that Trump had no choice. “Several presidents and seven former presidents have come to testify before Congress, some of them voluntarily,” he said. “Just because he’s a former president doesn’t mean he’s qualified to skip the law.” Aziz Huq is a law professor at the University of Chicago with a focus on constitutional law and has joined All Things Considered to analyze what lies ahead. This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Interview Highlights Whether Trump Can Override Subpoenas A subpoena is a legitimate command to present documents or testify. However, the subpoena must be enforced. Congress must do some action before this subpoena goes into effect, whichever route it takes will take considerable time and will give the former president plenty of opportunity to delay further proceedings. At least the lifespan of the current Parliament. The Commission has two basic options as to what punishment he may face if he does not cooperate. The first is that the case can be referred to the Justice Department. In 1857 there was a statute allowing prosecution for contempt of Parliament. In fact, Steve Bannon has just been convicted under that statute. A second option the Commission may have is to proceed in court itself, using civil action to enforce the ex-president’s performance under the terms of the subpoena. If the Commission takes the second route, there is the possibility of civil contempt sanctions, which can carry fines and, rarely, imprisonment. If they take the criminal contempt course, the Justice Department agrees to file a case, and the court finds that they are contemptuous of the former president, they could face up to a year in prison and fines of up to $1,000. What will happen to Jan? If the Republicans win the House of Representatives in the November elections, a new majority will have the power to close the House of Representatives if the sixth-placed Republicans control the House. It also withdraws subpoenas against the sixth-placed former president. In this case, the former president would not have a legal interest in providing information to a committee that no longer exists. As for what the point of the subpoena is from a legal point of view, the committee is clear about the former president’s 1.6 event. It points out that the allegation of Lee’s involvement is a crime. It’s not entirely impossible to see some kind of legal consequences from this. After the November election, the committee decides to conduct a criminal investigation with the Ministry of Justice, and I believe that the Ministry of Justice will conduct criminal investigations against the former president even if the House of Representatives changes. We believe that the course of action will raise a number of unprecedented legal issues, for example whether the subpoena can be prosecuted for contempt after the subpoena itself is withdrawn. But, at least considering the current political environment, it is conceivable. It is unusual in that all three volumes are immediately drawn to the question whether it is a problem that raises concerns about the separation of powers. The question immediately arises as to whether the legislature should go to court or the Attorney General to prosecute. If Congress indicates that he wants to do so, the question is whether executive powers or other executive powers interfere with the actions of the courts or the actions of the legislature. So, absolutely, there is a precarious separation of powers issue. Perhaps what makes this story unique is that these issues are complex and intertwined because all three are involved. Members of the House Investigation Committee in January. 6 The attack on the Capitol is scheduled to hold a hearing on October 13 to summon Trump. Mandel Ngan/Pool/AFP Hide Caption Via Getty Images Toggle Caption Mandel Ngan/Pool/AFP 6 Via Getty Images The Capitol Attack is scheduled to hold a hearing on October 13 to subpoena Trump. Mandel Ngan/Pool/AFP via Getty Images As to whether there is a mechanism to hold such high-level officials accountable, it is possible to imagine Congress creating an appropriately nonpartisan mechanism to investigate and pursue sanctions or accountability against high-level officials. I think. crimes within the administration. We have tried to do so on several previous occasions, and at least now if we do, it would be contrary to the interpretation of the Constitution adopted by the Supreme Court over the past decade or so. So I think it’s possible to imagine an effective plan for high-level responsibility. But today the problem is the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution that prevents such measures from being implemented. Manuela L√≥pez Restrepo has adapted this interview for the web.
#Donald #Trump #summoned #Heres #whats

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *