Timex
3413
That’s what struck me.
I thought he was just a charlatan, but if those texts are to be believed, he’s a true believer, and just profoundly stupid.
Or maybe he just can’t turn off the conman routine.
… Or he knows the Feds are listening, as members of organized crime and their associates generally do.
antlers
3415
I was correct that the Capitol Police weren’t available as an enforcement arm of the House of Representatives, I just was incorrect about the reasons why. They are not now, have never been, and aren’t available to become enforcers of contempt citations. The House does not have executive authority over the Capitol Police; executive authority resides with the police chief, whose mission is quite limited and well-defined. The House shares oversight authority through picking board members, and have funding authority because they are the House.
My original reference for why the House was limited to the Sergeant-of-Arms in enforcing intrinsic contempt citations neglected some of these details, and I interpreted them incorrectly.
antlers
3416
Orwell had it right: a true Party man believes wholeheartedly what he is saying, even if his duties require him to know that it is a lie.
Yes, I understand that you believe that, but I don’t see any basis for that belief in anything you’ve said or referenced. You may be right, but you may also be wrong.
Also, you may be crazy. But you just may be the lunatic we’re looking for.
Sharpe
3419
Well, as I posted upthread, the House itself doesn’t seem to have much faith in (or willingness to rely upon) their own ability to enforce their own subpoenas as they are attempting to enforce their subpoenas by suing in federal court.
Unless I am sorely mistaken, that will fail, then what?
Sharpe
3420
In addition, since the House clearly doesn’t have the fortitude to push impeachment, where are they going to find the fortitude to confront Trump and his people forcibly by means of attempted detainment, etc? Can you imagine the headlines? “Congress takes Hope Hicks Political Prisoner!!” (This is almost certainly why Congress is trying to go through the courts instead of attempting this on their own, in addition to the lack of much in the way of de facto enforcement power).
Let me put this another way: Trump’s blatant, unjustified, screaming defiance of Congress is in itself impeachable, at least in terms of provoking or inciting Congress’ impeachment power. It’s like a criminal defendant saying “fuck you” to a trial judge, which would normally be idiotic, unless of course the trial judge has no willingness to actually start the criminal case and is afraid even getting court going.
And Congress is just… taking it. Pretending to “take action” by legal maneuverings that I believe will be mostly fruitless (Congress subpoenas to third parties outside the Trump sphere will probably be enforced, but I believe their efforts on Trump and his team will be abject failures).
Honestly, it’s become an embarrassment.
You win the internet today!
That’s been my interpretation also. Admittedly almost all of this is minimal historical precedent, but so is Trump’s utter defiance. As I’ve said before I want Barr etc. In jail, and if that triggers a constitutional crisis so be it. I’m confident that at least through the circuit court. The court will side with Congress.
I don’t see what Congress has to lose at this point.
Banzai
3425
Yep, lets hammer on the constitution a little and see how it holds up. If the president really can’t be tried for crimes while president, aside from impeachment (which the GOP will only vote for when they see it as a positive for their party, not because it’s legit), that’s something we all should know before we choose to elect criminals to the office.
I’m imagining the following scenario:
Presiding member: “Sergeant at Arms, remove these unruly spectators!”
Sergeant at Arms: “Capitol Police, remove these protestors.”
Capitol Police: “I may, but first I have to go check with the Senate Sergeant at Arms to see if that’s OK with him.”
Time passes.
Capitol Police: “Nope, he says I can’t, sorry.”
See, that sort of thing isn’t going to happen. If the SaA of the House places a witness under arrest and instructs the Capitol Police to put him/her in a holding cell, that’s what they are going to do. If the
Senate SaA doesn’t like that, there’s going to be an argument later, but that isn’t going to stop the Capitol Police from locking the witness up.
Don’t the Capitol Police have limited jurisdiction? Most of the folks they really want on the record aren’t even showing up. Say, Barr was in his office at DoJ & walked across the street for lunch at Trump International. They couldn’t touch him, could they?
Why would there be a difference between things that the Capitol Police do every day and that are explicitly covered by their mission statement, and something enormously politically loaded that they’ve never done before that is outside their written mandate? Can you figure it out?
It’s just an example. It can’t be the case that the Capitol Police will pause to seek instructions from the other chamber when they’re asked to arrest someone. I’m sure you can figure that out.
Clay
3431
On the other hand, doesn’t the House set budget for and have some authority over the District of Columbia and its police?
They have shared jurisdiction in DC and can make criminal arrests within a fairly large portion of the District, but I doubt they could arrest Barr in that situation and they would surely not try.
