2684

Not just that, but they’re also practicing politics from a different era. Look at how Biden still suggests that we can reason with Republicans and find compromise.

2685

So why won’t they find him in contempt and arrest and detain him? Are they so worried about how the undecideds will perceive such a move? Does their polling data indicate that the safest route for re-election is to continue playing the role of ineffectual cowards?

2686

I think the most likely answer is that they just don’t know what to do.

2687

Or do know what to do, but are to chickenshit to actually do it.

I think it’s that one personally.

2688

This is not something they can actually do. They have no institutional power to detain anyone. All they can do is refer contempt citations to the Justice department.

If the Attorney General won’t prosecute the contempt citations, and the Senate won’t impeach the Attorney General for ignoring his duty, there’s not the House by itself can do. They could try to go through the judiciary branch and get a court order that would force, I guess, the Attorney General not to ignore their contempt citations; if the Attorney General flouted a court order I suppose a judge could order a US Marshal to arrest him. But I seriously doubt any judge would want to get involved in such a dispute between the House and the executive.

There is also intrinsic contempt, where the House could theoretically bypass the Justice department to find someone in criminal contempt. Even if the House were to attempt this, they have no mechanism for enforcing intrinsic contempt. It’s kind of like the Stalin quote: “And how many divisions does the Pope have?” The House, and especially the House without the cooperation of the Senate, has 0 divisions.

2689

They should be taking a page from the Republican playbook: Do it anyway and let the courts figure out if they were allowed to later.

2690

Yup. Parliament should be supreme. This is not a monarchy.

2691

This is where I am at.

Because were the situation flipped you know this is what happens.

Take the gloves off, and punch back.

2692

Do what?

And what do you think Congress could do that the Republicans didn’t try when Obama was President? They held Holder in contempt, and that was worth nothing.

The House can’t do a Bill of Attainder; it’s specifically excluded in the Constitution.

2693

After skimming a 90 pages legal article on Congress contempt power, I’ve read numerous references that Congress hasn’t used in contempt authority. since 1935. I finally found the 1935 case.

It’s short, so I’m just copying the wiki article.

Jurney v. MacCracken , 294 U.S. 125 (1935), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress has an implicit power to find one in contempt of Congress.[1] During a Senate investigation of airlines and of the [U.S. Postmaster General]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postmaster_General), the attorney William P. MacCracken, Jr. allowed his clients to destroy subpoenaed documents. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), MacCracken, a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.[2] MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus with the federal courts to overturn his arrest, but, after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition.[1]

The respondent, Chesley W. Jurney, was the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, and hence the person with custody of MacCracken.

So in 1935 they threw a guy in jail for 10 days, and the Supreme Court went along. Why is it you think they can’t do it in 2019?

It is also worth noting the Congress has control over the Capitol police and in fact the entire District of Columbia is ruled exclusively by Congress, budgets, bills, veto power of the DC city councils laws etc… So I’d argue that Congress has the right to use every cop in DC to enforce its contempt citation.

If SCOTUS wants to disagree that’s fine, but in the meantime. I want the crooks in this administration jailed.

It is not like the House can do anything productive now days, lets have them try folks in the administration for contempt. It is good TV.

Edit: Now having read the SCOTUS opinion in Jurney vs MacCraken. It was short and JUSTICE BRANDEIS is a remarkably concise and clear writer, I’m even more convinced that you can substitute the various Trump cronies for Mr MacCracken.

Specifically, Congress has the authority to investigate stuff, the person is interfering with the investigation by ignoring/subverting a subpoena. Congress can punish them.strong text

2694

Yes, Congress does on fact have the constitutional power to imprison someone in contempt of Congress.

2695

The power is worthless without the balls.

2696

image
image.jpg970×514 75.5 KB

2697

Note that McCracken stayed at Jurney’s home, since there wasn’t anywhere else to put him. It was hardly a punitive confinement.

The House can tell the House Sergeant-at-Arms what to do, but if, say, Lewandowski was unwilling to be taken into custody, there’s nothing the Sergeant-at-Arms could really do about it.

Congress has oversight authority, but not executive authority, over D.C. and the Capitol police. Neither institution is going to respond to some sort of command from the House, especially when the command is countermanded by the Senate.

The fantasy of the House being able to “do something” besides hold hearings and pass bills is just that, a fantasy-- and that fantasy is a distraction from what really needs to be done, which is to sway public opinion.

2698

The Sergeant at arms can arrest and detain him. He has that power.

I think that if it came down to it, the SAG works with the Capitol police.

2699

Congress has its own budget, if DC won’t let them use their jails (and I have my doubt that progressive city like Washington DC will ignore the House in favor of the Senate). They can rent a building and turn it into a jail, and hire bounty hunters if they want.

Trump doesn’t have the power to do a bunch of stuff he done and sometime in 2020 or 2021 the cases will wind their way through the courts.

This is a way to win public opinion. “We are Congress don’t fuck with us” at the very least should energize the base.

2700

Congress has other recourse if push comes to shove:

image
image.jpg900×477 124 KB

(Granted, that was one member of the House against a member of the Senate, but the point is, think outside the box!)

2701

If you think the House using spare money from its budget to hire mercenaries and establish detention centers is a good look, politically-- well, there’s not much more to talk about.

2702

At some point, if you don’t enforce laws, then you don’t have laws.

2703

Yet hiring mercenaries makes for a long and uncertain path back to the rule of law.