1909

Keep in mind that this is just a fantasy at this point. There are frequently disagreements between the Executive and Legislative branches and, at least in modern history, Congress has never arrested a member of the Executive branch for contempt.

Here’s a handy list. In general, the branches work out a deal before an arrest must be made. Of course Trump means that nothing from the past matters, so who knows. But there’s still a lot of steps that have to happen between now and Mnuchin being escorted out of his home in cuffs.

1910

I don’t think the house actually arrests the dude themselves… like in the case of Gorsuch, I think it still gets handed over to the DOJ.

1911

No one’s been stupid enough to blatantly refuse a lawful order from Congress before.

They’d probably ask for the assistance, but Congress is allowed to do it themselves. That was basically the summation of the lawsuit: that the SaA didn’t have the authority to arrest the guy. SCOTUS said, “yeah he does,” and that was that.

1912

Shiva is suggesting that the Seargent at Arms and his squad are empowered to arrest anyone convicted in Congress of contempt and take them to a Federal prison. No idea if it’s true or not, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that would actually happen, especially about a dispute between two co-equal branches of government.

Eric Holder was found in contempt of congress in 2012. I don’t recall seeing him being led away in chains.

1913

I think that they still have to go through the DOJ, because there needs to be a trial. Congress does not have the authority to just throw people in jail if it wants. They still have constitutional rights.

1914

The trial is held on the floor of the chamber of Congress.

Jesus Christ, its literally in the link I threw up for Jurney and what the case was about.

Here’s something else to not look at:

1915

One suspects that the President would just pardon him.

1916

Ah, ok, I guess it makes sense when viewed through the lens of being similar to the judiciary holding someone in contempt… there’s not really a separate trial for contempt, I guess.

I’m still unclear though how this worked with Gorsuch though, because the house found her in contempt, but then handed it over to the DOJ, who then refused to prosecute. If the House had the ability to do it themselves, I’m not certain why that would have all happened.

1917

Nancy Pelosi is not going to instruct anyone to go arrest Mnuchin over not turning over Trump’s tax records. It’s too big a step.

Instead, she’ll refer it to the DOJ, which will not do anything, and they keep an issue alive for the 2020 elections.

Americans care about this issue, but not enough to have the House of Representatives arrest the Secretary of the Treasury.

1918

Historically they don’t enforce it much. Literally the last time this happened afaik is in 1934 which is what Jurney was in response to.

1919

And this is the real issue. How does the law work if one of our two political parties decides it simply doesn’t apply to their guys?

1920

But that’s what they voted for… Trump doesn’t play by the rules, man!

1921

Oh Nancy, you want it to be one way. But it’s the other way

1922


1923

My understanding is the Sargent-in-arm has an agreement with the Capitol police, so they can put Mnuchin and Barr in a Washington DC jail cell. This is consistent with Congress authority over the government of the District of Columbia. It is true that generally the executive branch and Congress work out a deal so that executive branch officials don’t spend time in jail, but there is no requirement they do so.

While in jail, they can appeal contempt conviction to the courts, but since they’ve had due process, I imagine the burden of proof is on the official to show that his conviction was wrong.

We don’t have co-equal branches, it is not just luck of the draw that Article 1 of the Constitution talks about the legislative branch first. Or that neither the courts, nor the executive branch have any power over how the Congress conducts its business. Hell, the executive branch can’t even arrest them in many cases.

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

In contrast, Congress has both power of impeachment over Judges and Presidents and contempt of Congress.

@Menzo you maybe right and Nancy, political calculus may decide this is a too drastic of a step. Personally, I’d like to see some contempt charges issued and folks jailed, just as civic lessons for the American people who seem to believe that President can act as a king for four years. I’m not sure but I believe that Trump’s pardon powers don’t apply to contempt charges. I think it would result in a healthy respect by administration official for Congress, in the future.

1924

Contempt would seem to be an ongoing violation, so even if you pardoned it, it would pop right back up again.

1925
1926

But since Mr. Barr issued his letter, the president has felt liberated and has been testing his bounds. He has poked fun at Joseph R. Biden Jr., the former vice president considering a presidential run, for his handsy approach to politics, despite his own troubled history with women.

Just skimming that article real quick - do they have some weird hangup on Biden? I’ve never seen him referred to by his full name. Googling it brings up the only other article to mention it - another weird reference in a NY Times article.

And also this link to the NY Times again, news about Joseph R. Biden Jr.

1927

I think the old axiom is full names are for killers and presidents, and it does seem odd the NYT is the only major outlet to do this to someone who is as of yet neither. It is a little weird, but at least they haven’t gone with Robinette (Biden’s middle name).

1928