Download raw source

Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com Received: by 10.140.18.137 with SMTP id 9csp22146qgf; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 23:03:59 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: <grant.dubler@gmail.com> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of grant.dubler@gmail.com designates 10.205.101.200 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.205.101.200 Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of grant.dubler@gmail.com designates 10.205.101.200 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=grant.dubler@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com X-Received: from mr.google.com ([10.205.101.200]) by 10.205.101.200 with SMTP id db8mr3732134bkc.182.1393225439089 (num_hops = 1); Sun, 23 Feb 2014 23:03:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=uNjdcdYrlP+maG6LJ/Q/g/geKTIWyw2GVvyezaZOytI=; b=BFrOnKp1e8sw2OSU1Vty4Qm+IqfN+oTnIgoWR7Lxi7dDp1KaWLQ+WFpjNgg46Ewmwj md2GsYGcVPY5eI6uF1xk2vTJV/y52D9h7oYsbhEvtFR/oXpU2z137qi8thbEIHjng/2r 9nDTwm75XMGPOQZVAt+KzbtGin9nFY88LMtyujr2tT0RSa3hfksw2/z6v2thOiMd2W1e 1sEejEHBUv1XpE4g3gkkiw6AgSByDrXfBusWNKfLYlQpbnStBdMNu9FvA0STEsYprv9a /aH/XyuhEhgIGsWPYJtJJefV/tH9kogQ9wi6jMqxKftTKx3Inbat/hHxPb6adQr/kFx0 LypQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.205.101.200 with SMTP id db8mr4470660bkc.182.1393225438620; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 23:03:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.205.9.199 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 23:03:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 02:03:58 -0500 Message-ID: <CADzVbsbUWGtd0aOw5X0VjQgcjrbNZm9JAK4E4pL+vQH9ALAMpA@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Congressional Investigations Paper Topic From: Grant Dubler <grant.dubler@gmail.com> To: John.Podesta@gmail.com, Ricahrd_Leon@dcd.uscourts.gov Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041c46385c9e0a04f321934f --f46d041c46385c9e0a04f321934f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 *Crawl Through the Mud: Abuse of Congressional Subpoena Power and its Affect on the Political Legitimacy of Investigations* *(alternative title) No Sense of Decency: Abuse of Congressional Investigations from McCarthy to Issa* In 1951, actor Larry Parks testified before the House un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) about his alleged involvement in Communist activities. When pressed to "name names" of fellow Communist, Parks made the following statement which would go down in history as representative of the Red Scare's quicksand-like quality: Don't present me with the choice of either being in contempt of this committee and going to jail or forcing me to really crawl through the mud to be an informer. For what purpose? I don't think it is a choice at all. I don't think this is really sportsmanlike. I don't think this is American. I don't think this is American justice While Mr. Parks was within his rights to hide behind the shield of the Fifth Amendment, doing so would not save him or his colleagues. Indeed, the whole exercise was designed to drag Parks through the mud and cast dirt on his fellow actors. Parks did not have a choice at all, for he could either ruin his reputation as a "Fifth Amendment Communist" or face contempt of Congress. Can such a situation be in the interests of American justice? Unfortunately, HUAC's hearings in the 1950s represent a problem that still exists today in Congressional investigations. Whether or not Parks answered yes to the $64 question ("Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?") was as irrelevant to American justice as was President Clinton's statement that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Now, more than a decade after the witch-hunt impeachment of our 42nd President, a new wave of Congressional investigations is dragging public officials and private citizens through the mud for political gain. From Fast and Furious to Benghazi to Obamacare, it seems no executive actor is safe from invasive Congressional scrutiny. Was this the true intention of the Founders when they granted such broad Article I authority to the Congress? Was this the intention of Congress when it first developed its rules for investigations? And how does the transparently political nature of investigations impact their legitimacy in the public sphere, particularly when the clear purpose of such an investigation is to tarnish an individual's reputation? --f46d041c46385c9e0a04f321934f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 <div dir="ltr"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b>Crawl Through the Mud: Abuse of Congressional Subpoena Power and its Affect on the Political Legitimacy of Investigations</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b> </b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b>(alternative title) No Sense of Decency: Abuse of Congressional Investigations from McCarthy to Issa</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">In 1951, actor Larry Parks testified before the House un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) about his alleged involvement in Communist activities. When pressed to “name names” of fellow Communist, Parks made the following statement which would go down in history as representative of the Red Scare’s quicksand-like quality:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="background-repeat:initial initial">Don't present me with the choice of either being in contempt of this committee and going to jail or forcing me to really crawl through the mud to be an informer. For what purpose? I don't think it is a choice at all. I don't think this is really sportsmanlike. I don't think this is American. I don't think this is American justice</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">While Mr. Parks was within his rights to hide behind the shield of the Fifth Amendment, doing so would not save him or his colleagues. Indeed, the whole exercise was designed to drag Parks through the mud and cast dirt on his fellow actors. Parks did not have a choice at all, for he could either ruin his reputation as a “Fifth Amendment Communist” or face contempt of Congress. Can such a situation be in the interests of American justice?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, HUAC’s hearings in the 1950s represent a problem that still exists today in Congressional investigations. Whether or not Parks answered yes to the $64 question (<span style="background-repeat:initial initial">"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?") was as irrelevant to American justice as was President Clinton’s statement that he “did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” </span>Now, more than a decade after the witch-hunt impeachment of our 42nd President, a new wave of Congressional investigations is dragging public officials and private citizens through the mud for political gain. From Fast and Furious to Benghazi to Obamacare, it seems no executive actor is safe from invasive Congressional scrutiny.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Was this the true intention of the Founders when they granted such broad Article I authority to the Congress? Was this the intention of Congress when it first developed its rules for investigations? And how does the transparently political nature of investigations impact their legitimacy in the public sphere, particularly when the clear purpose of such an investigation is to tarnish an individual’s reputation?</p> </div> --f46d041c46385c9e0a04f321934f--