Replies

"The Supreme Court said (in United States vs. Touhy) that a state court judge could not hold an employee of the Department of Justice in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena if they had been ordered not to provide the information by their superior,"
Is that a double, wait triple negative? Okay I will try and dissect:
You subpoena Joe from the FBI to testify. Normally they would be forced to do so or be held in contempt.
Joe's boss says that Joe can't testify. That nullifies the next step which would be to find Joe in contempt.
This is crap, unless there is a matter of national security at stake. I would just like to see the FBI claim that and have people say "Why? Wasn't it just a right-wing nut that blew up the federal building?"

I think you have the gist of it.

Joe can't be punished with contempt of court for not testifying because his boss said he couldn't testify. It sounds even worse the 3rd or 4th time one says it. They must think they are G*d and far above the law of the land. Hmm Joe can't be punished for not testifying because his boss won't let him testify...what's his punishment if he wants to testify and does testify regardless of what his boss allows? Death Penalty? Life in prison? A fine? Probably the worst horror that could befall a man..a weekend alone with hillary?

Btw, that was a quote from an earlier post/report. I like to do that so that people will know what I am responding to but in replying to you I didn't c/p what I am referring to.