won't comply with impeachment inquiry; Ordered Not to Speak in Impeachment Inquiry

[dajoki]

How much "executive privilege" is there anyway? Can I use it if I just happen to say the illegitimate one's name? That seems what they are now saying.
---

Florida businessmen with Giuliani, Ukraine ties won’t comply with impeachment inquiry
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article235876792.html?action=click&module=STYLN_trump_suite&variant=1_trump_suite&state=default&pgtype=Article®ion=body&context=guide

“While we have engaged with counsels for these witnesses, they have so far refused to agree to testify or turn over relevant documents. If they continue to fail to comply, they will be served with subpoenas in short order,” an official working on the impeachment inquiry said.

Dowd sent the House Intelligence Committee an email on Oct. 3 detailing his objections to the request for documents and depositions. In the email, which was released on Monday, Dowd said getting up to speed on Parnas and Fruman’s legal situation “will take some time” and that their discussions with Rudy Giuliani regarding Trump would be covered by “attorney-client, attorney work and other privileges.” Dowd began representing Parnas and Fruman last week.

He also called the request for documents “overly broad and unduly burdensome,” saying he has reached the “inescapable conclusion that the Democratic Committee members’ intent is to harass, intimidate and embarrass my clients.”

Witness in Trump-Ukraine Matter Ordered Not to Speak in Impeachment Inquiry
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/us/politics/sondland-trump-ukraine-impeach.html

We asked our colleague Charlie Savage what was at stake here: “It was predictable that the Trump administration would balk at turning over the subpoenaed documents related to the Ukraine matter — including many internal White House communications that any administration would see as covered by executive privilege,” he told us. “But the subpoena will likely also allow the House, if it chooses, to link an impeachment article about obstruction directly to the Ukraine scandal.”

[bigbrother05]

1. 3..2..1.. "But Obama didn't do anything about Crimea"

Deflect, dissemble, dodge

[Mike 03]

2. Parnas and Fruman

Those two crooks have no legitimate legal rationale to refuse to comply and, really, since we're investigating a criminal matter none of them do (Giuliani especially). But having said that, I'd like to see us use Inherent Contempt first on Parnas and Fruman because their noncompliance is so egregious.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Schiff is speaking right now - press conference

[AllaN01Bear]

4. contemptive congress anyone ?

[Newest Reality]

5. We better not...

We had better not see a continuation of privilege here. That's troublesome. I don't really care what your standing or status or business deals are. It really does not circumvent the law. You are not above or beyond it. The rest of us aren't. The whole system relies on this being enforced and it even comes down to the power and gravity of our Constitution itself.

When I see a legal subpoena served, and the recipient refuses to comply/appear, then I would fully expect, (as a layperson) that the result would be arrest and search warrants. From there, the parties would be made to appear and could even be found to be in contempt with criminal proceedings that could lead to fines and imprisonment. Any pertinent information discovered by way of the search warrant would be made available.

This is what I would expect. Doesn't this also apply to House matters?

[Mike 03]

6. This!

[Newest Reality]

7. !