È strano

This is odd. An item in the floor proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives for today has me scratching my head:

5:19 P.M. -

The House received a communication from Bonnie Walsh, Office of the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House. Pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, Ms. Walsh notified the House that she had been served with a criminal subpoena for testimony issued by the Circuit Court for the 16th Judicial Circuit, DeKalb County, Illinois and that after consultation with the Office of General Counsel, she had determined that compliance with the subpoena was consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.

I'm puzzled because I can't figure out why an Illinois state court would be issuing a subpoena to someone who is apparently a Washington congressional staffer, albeit one for the man who represents this district. I also can't figure out precisely who Bonnie Walsh is and what she does for Denny Hastert. Hastert's official websites don't seem to include staff information, and while a quick Google search suggests that Ms. Walsh worked for Rep. Hastert at one point in time, the websites that so identify her are either undated or seriously out of date. (One of them, only visible in cached format, also includes as members of the Illinois congressional delegation both Senator Paul Simon, God be good to him, and Senator Alan Dixon--which suggests just how old the information is, given that Illinois' present senior senator, Dick Durbin, was first elected in 1996.)

Most puzzling of all is that last sentence, though. Exactly what "precedents and privileges of the House" are involved? The Constitution provides that members of Congress cannot be prosecuted for anything they may say when Congress is in session, but to the best of my knowledge that privilege does not extend to their staff members. Nor am I aware of any federal statute or principle whereby a congressional staffer might be able to beg off a subpoena duly issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Interestingly, Ms. Walsh's was only one of several subpoenas of staff members brought to the attention of the House today, and they all contained that boilerplate sentence. Maybe the Imperial Presidency is starting to wear off on even the most junior sprouts in the Shrubbery, such that they, too, feel immune to either prosecution or criticism?