According to RollCall, a former staffer for the House Appropriations Committee that worked for then Chairman Jerry Lewis said he intends to defy a federal subpoena he was served today from the US District Court for the Central District in California. You may have read about Lewis' attempts to obstruct investigations into his conduct here, when USA Debra Wong Yang was paid $1.5 million to leave the Justice Dept. and work for the firm defending Lewis.
UPDATE: The staffer's name is Greg Lankler. He worked as an assistant on the Appropriation Defense Subcommittee. Thanks to wanderindiana for the find.
Or, you may remember Rep. Jerry Lewis R-CA (like I needed the R) when he fired all 60 investigators working for the Appropriations Committee looking into waste, fraud and abuse in the committee. Gee, seems like a no-brainer where the problem is. Maybe its the earmarks for contributors. Of course its hard to say no, when all your friends are on the take from the same bribe master, Brent Wilkes, who put together Hookergate.
Stop for a minute and chuckle over the Republican meme that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible. OK, now that that is out of your system, realize that what has been predicted on this and other blogs is coming to fruition:
If you don't enforce every subpoena, people will throw them away like parking tickets.
This is what happens when Miers, Bartlett, and Rove are allowed to thumb their noses at the People's Branch. Every other subpoena, order, or law becomes meaningless. Now it's not just the President's former legal council, now it's little puke staffers too. Its time to enforce all subpoenas. Otherwise everything Congress does might as well be preluded by "sense of the senate."
And for the record, I pay my parking tickets.
Update: I couldn't get the staffer's name because I don't have the $285 for a subscription to Roll Call. If anyone that can supply this in the comments, it would be great!
Another Update: I've been corrected, It was the US District Court for the Central District in California. Thanx for the catch, mrblifil and Stormwatcher.
Update III: Thanks to everyone for the fact checking. I posted as I saw the news break and as more info came to light, you sharp kossacks have helped by adding information.
Dear Madam Speaker:
I am submitting this letter pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. On October 11, 2007, I received a grand jury subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District for California. After consulting with the Office of General Counsel, and based on the information currently available to me, I have determined that the ad testificandum aspect of that subpoena is not consistent with the rights and privileges of the House, and the duces tecum aspect of the subpoena seeks records that are not material and relevant.
Sincerely,
Greg Lankler,
Staff Assistant.
And thanks to katonahdem for deciphering the legalese downthread. Ad testificandum is a request for testimony and duces tecum is a request for documents.