Today's Star-Gazette coverage includes a longer article about today's trial of anti-war protesters in Bath. As expected, Kuhl will not be attending the trial, even though he was issued a subpoena on Wednesday. Channel 10 in Syracuse, and Channel 18 in Elmira also carry short pieces on the subpoena.
According to its work schedule [pdf], Congress will adjourn next Tuesday (9/11) at 3 p.m. and remain in recess for the rest of the week due to Rosh Hashana. So Kuhl could, in theory, testify next week if necessary.
In the Star-Gazette story, Kuhl's spokesperson says that the subpoena will be referred to the House's general counsel. According to Rule 8 of the Rules of the House, Kuhl has a duty to inform the Speaker when in receipt of a subpoena that pertains to the "official functions of the House". I don't know if maintaining his district office falls under that heading. If so, according to Rule 8, it is up to the Member to determine if the subpoena is "is a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the court, is material and relevant, and is consistent with the privileges and rights of the House." Assuming that it is, then the member is directed to comply.
One of the major privileges of the house is contained in the Speech or Debate clause of the Constitution, and is also known as "Congressional Immunity". It forbids the arrest of a Member of Congress for crimes other than "Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" while Congress is in session or while the Member travels to or from Congress. I doubt that this clause will have any bearing on a subpoena from a court in Bath, but any legal action involving a Member of Congress engaged in his official duties opens an interesting can of worms.
Comments
According to Rule 8 of the Rules of the House, Kuhl has a duty to inform the Speaker when in receipt of a subpoena that pertains to the "official functions of the House". I don't know if maintaining his district office falls under that heading.
An interesting question which I suspect will be answerable largely at the whim of the Speaker, Pelosi. Or the Rules Committee, Slaughter (D-NY, right next door). If that's the case, Kuhl may indeed need to testify. Politics aside, when an arrest is made inside your district offices and you're subpoenaed, I think you're obligated as a Representative and a leader to show up.
Just to be clear: I think he'll eventually comply with the subpoena, if the judge doesn't throw it out today. My guess is that it was issued because one of the protesters put him on their witness list, but that's just a guess.
I was just curious why his office referred the subpoena to the House counsel, and I think the answer is that all subpoenas are referred there.
I'm thinking you're right about the referral: either that, or as a Republican these days it pays to exercise a goodly measure of discretion! As for where the subpoena came from, as far as I know, that would be the only real reason such a subpoena would be issued. I would be surprised if the prosecution added him to the witness list, since it wouldn't help their case much and might spark some negative impressions.