Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The problem is idiot that you don't know what your talking about, every single contempt of congress in recent history, when confronted with the prison time and the fine that goes with the contemn of congress charge have all broken down and gave up and turned over the information that congress demanded of them. but one,it makes no sense. and you already have been corrected . The logic of your interpretation, erase that , the shit you made up isn't true. or logical'You need a history lesson the charges continue till a court decision or the charges being dropped , where did you get that shit from,The process is long, likely too long actually
Court cases would drag past this Congressional session, which ends Jan 3, at which point these subpoenas go 'poof'
Actually it is you that needs the lesson.
Follow the bouncing ball.
This Congress issues subpeonas.
This Congress ends on Jan 3.
The subpoenas die with it.
I just heard some hand wringer sobbing about it on NPR. if it's not true I will stand corrected, but it makes sense.
Eithe in the case of Rita Lavelle was sent to jail and all the rest gave into congress and gave the information asked for. Add in the fact that this also can be run in civil court and it will be in place till a judgement by the court. Where would you even get a stupid idea that the only time congress can effect charges against people who won't testifies if once subpoenaed is only during the time that congress was in progress, I mean think about that. You have zero clue , your either lying or misunderstood something or don't have the capacity to think.
It makes perfect sense moron.
I explained the logic clearly, i thought, but ill try again as you are clearly a bit dense.
Congress convenes in segments called sessions.
Got that much? Good.
Now a given session of congress is itself a legal entity. It issues a subpeona. The session is the legal entity filing the subpeona, not Adam Schiff, or whoever.
Got that, dummy?
Now the session ends and a New Session convenes.
It is a new legal entity.
The prior session's subpeonas and contempt citations die, because that session no longer exists. How that is so difficult to grasp I really dont know. If the new session would like to re-issue it can.
Have you ever stopped in the midst of your blathering fits of blind ranting to ask why people so often ignore these and get away with it. Hmmm?
Well, now you know one of the reasons, dumbfuck. They can play legal games long enough to run out the clock on the legal entity that issued them.
How fucking dumb does a person have to be to not see that while lecturing others on the mechanics and accusing them of making shit up, all the while running willy-nilly with your head stuffed up your ass.
Lol. Nice work, dumbshit.
And, in the event that you still think I'm "making this up" or "not understanding" here you go.
Opinion | House Dems won't beat Trump with legislative loopholes. But there's another way.
"For one thing, a congressional contempt citation like the one the House Judiciary Committee issued for Barr on Wednesday is evanescent. The process is almost comically inefficient, and requires the contempt citation to be eventually approved by the full House. The citation also expires at the end of the Congress that issued it. When a new Congress is seated, it can start again. "
Next time bring a clue.....
The problem is idiot that you don't know what your talking about, every single contempt of congress in recent history, when confronted with the prison time and the fine that goes with the contemn of congress charge have all broken down and gave up and turned over the information that congress demanded of them. but one,it makes no sense. and you already have been corrected . The logic of your interpretation, erase that , the shit you made up isn't true. or logical'You need a history lesson the charges continue till a court decision or the charges being dropped , where did you get that shit from,The process is long, likely too long actually
Court cases would drag past this Congressional session, which ends Jan 3, at which point these subpoenas go 'poof'
Sure, twit.
This is binary, dumbshit.
I cited an example and there are plenty more
Actually it is you that needs the lesson.
Follow the bouncing ball.
This Congress issues subpeonas.
This Congress ends on Jan 3.
The subpoenas die with it.
I just heard some hand wringer sobbing about it on NPR. if it's not true I will stand corrected, but it makes sense.
Eithe in the case of Rita Lavelle was sent to jail and all the rest gave into congress and gave the information asked for. Add in the fact that this also can be run in civil court and it will be in place till a judgement by the court. Where would you even get a stupid idea that the only time congress can effect charges against people who won't testifies if once subpoenaed is only during the time that congress was in progress, I mean think about that. You have zero clue , your either lying or misunderstood something or don't have the capacity to think.
It makes perfect sense moron.
I explained the logic clearly, i thought, but ill try again as you are clearly a bit dense.
Congress convenes in segments called sessions.
Got that much? Good.
Now a given session of congress is itself a legal entity. It issues a subpeona. The session is the legal entity filing the subpeona, not Adam Schiff, or whoever.
Got that, dummy?
Now the session ends and a New Session convenes.
It is a new legal entity.
The prior session's subpeonas and contempt citations die, because that session no longer exists. How that is so difficult to grasp I really dont know. If the new session would like to re-issue it can.
Have you ever stopped in the midst of your blathering fits of blind ranting to ask why people so often ignore these and get away with it. Hmmm?
Well, now you know one of the reasons, dumbfuck. They can play legal games long enough to run out the clock on the legal entity that issued them.
How fucking dumb does a person have to be to not see that while lecturing others on the mechanics and accusing them of making shit up, all the while running willy-nilly with your head stuffed up your ass.
Lol. Nice work, dumbshit.
And, in the event that you still think I'm "making this up" or "not understanding" here you go.
Opinion | House Dems won't beat Trump with legislative loopholes. But there's another way.
"For one thing, a congressional contempt citation like the one the House Judiciary Committee issued for Barr on Wednesday is evanescent. The process is almost comically inefficient, and requires the contempt citation to be eventually approved by the full House. The citation also expires at the end of the Congress that issued it. When a new Congress is seated, it can start again. "
Next time bring a clue.....
Rita Lavelle
and that one was in court way after congress ended for the year.and was finally found guilty and was imprisoned and fined
So fuckhead you are full of bullshit. Your just another red neck hater, MY guess would be a old fat white guy.
Bullshit I gave you proof that your smoking wacko weed . one more time Rita Lavelle was prosecuted for contempt of congress , her court session went on for a long time after congress stopped hearings and she was thrown in jail and fined , there is no other contemporary references because all others gave into congress when they were charged with contempt of congress , I'm ignoring this cookoo from now on but if your interested in this simply google Rita Lavelle.The problem is idiot that you don't know what your talking about, every single contempt of congress in recent history, when confronted with the prison time and the fine that goes with the contemn of congress charge have all broken down and gave up and turned over the information that congress demanded of them. but one,it makes no sense. and you already have been corrected . The logic of your interpretation, erase that , the shit you made up isn't true. or logical'You need a history lesson the charges continue till a court decision or the charges being dropped , where did you get that shit from,
Sure, twit.
This is binary, dumbshit.
I cited an example and there are plenty more
Actually it is you that needs the lesson.
Follow the bouncing ball.
This Congress issues subpeonas.
This Congress ends on Jan 3.
The subpoenas die with it.
I just heard some hand wringer sobbing about it on NPR. if it's not true I will stand corrected, but it makes sense.
Eithe in the case of Rita Lavelle was sent to jail and all the rest gave into congress and gave the information asked for. Add in the fact that this also can be run in civil court and it will be in place till a judgement by the court. Where would you even get a stupid idea that the only time congress can effect charges against people who won't testifies if once subpoenaed is only during the time that congress was in progress, I mean think about that. You have zero clue , your either lying or misunderstood something or don't have the capacity to think.
It makes perfect sense moron.
I explained the logic clearly, i thought, but ill try again as you are clearly a bit dense.
Congress convenes in segments called sessions.
Got that much? Good.
Now a given session of congress is itself a legal entity. It issues a subpeona. The session is the legal entity filing the subpeona, not Adam Schiff, or whoever.
Got that, dummy?
Now the session ends and a New Session convenes.
It is a new legal entity.
The prior session's subpeonas and contempt citations die, because that session no longer exists. How that is so difficult to grasp I really dont know. If the new session would like to re-issue it can.
Have you ever stopped in the midst of your blathering fits of blind ranting to ask why people so often ignore these and get away with it. Hmmm?
Well, now you know one of the reasons, dumbfuck. They can play legal games long enough to run out the clock on the legal entity that issued them.
How fucking dumb does a person have to be to not see that while lecturing others on the mechanics and accusing them of making shit up, all the while running willy-nilly with your head stuffed up your ass.
Lol. Nice work, dumbshit.
And, in the event that you still think I'm "making this up" or "not understanding" here you go.
Opinion | House Dems won't beat Trump with legislative loopholes. But there's another way.
"For one thing, a congressional contempt citation like the one the House Judiciary Committee issued for Barr on Wednesday is evanescent. The process is almost comically inefficient, and requires the contempt citation to be eventually approved by the full House. The citation also expires at the end of the Congress that issued it. When a new Congress is seated, it can start again. "
Next time bring a clue.....
Rita Lavelle
and that one was in court way after congress ended for the year.and was finally found guilty and was imprisoned and fined
So fuckhead you are full of bullshit. Your just another red neck hater, MY guess would be a old fat white guy.
Put the shovel down you giant bag of stupid.
The subpeonas and any citations for contempt expire with the session that issued them. The ensuing session can start the process again, but deals with the same limitations.
I've cited a supporting resource and others are freely available for anyone with 30 seconds and the knowledge to simply use google FFS.
Now either take this opportunity to learn something you didnt know and improve yourself or STFU and take your blithering ignorance somewhere else.
The process is long but the judgement is al ready in. The people who didn't comply with the House subpoenas have broke the law and this should be approached both by the house as a criminal investigation and in civil court which judgement once made and still not complied to will then have both monetary and legal actions. They are criminals they belong in jail right next to the person who forced them to do it.
Bullshit I gave you proof that your smoking wacko weed . one more time Rita Lavelle was prosecuted for contempt of congress , her court session went on for a long time after congress stopped hearings and she was thrown in jail and fined , there is no other contemporary references because all others gave into congress when they were charged with contempt of congress , I'm ignoring this cookoo from now on but if your interested in this simply google Rita Lavelle.The problem is idiot that you don't know what your talking about, every single contempt of congress in recent history, when confronted with the prison time and the fine that goes with the contemn of congress charge have all broken down and gave up and turned over the information that congress demanded of them. but one,it makes no sense. and you already have been corrected . The logic of your interpretation, erase that , the shit you made up isn't true. or logical'Sure, twit.
This is binary, dumbshit.
I cited an example and there are plenty more
Actually it is you that needs the lesson.
Follow the bouncing ball.
This Congress issues subpeonas.
This Congress ends on Jan 3.
The subpoenas die with it.
I just heard some hand wringer sobbing about it on NPR. if it's not true I will stand corrected, but it makes sense.
Eithe in the case of Rita Lavelle was sent to jail and all the rest gave into congress and gave the information asked for. Add in the fact that this also can be run in civil court and it will be in place till a judgement by the court. Where would you even get a stupid idea that the only time congress can effect charges against people who won't testifies if once subpoenaed is only during the time that congress was in progress, I mean think about that. You have zero clue , your either lying or misunderstood something or don't have the capacity to think.
It makes perfect sense moron.
I explained the logic clearly, i thought, but ill try again as you are clearly a bit dense.
Congress convenes in segments called sessions.
Got that much? Good.
Now a given session of congress is itself a legal entity. It issues a subpeona. The session is the legal entity filing the subpeona, not Adam Schiff, or whoever.
Got that, dummy?
Now the session ends and a New Session convenes.
It is a new legal entity.
The prior session's subpeonas and contempt citations die, because that session no longer exists. How that is so difficult to grasp I really dont know. If the new session would like to re-issue it can.
Have you ever stopped in the midst of your blathering fits of blind ranting to ask why people so often ignore these and get away with it. Hmmm?
Well, now you know one of the reasons, dumbfuck. They can play legal games long enough to run out the clock on the legal entity that issued them.
How fucking dumb does a person have to be to not see that while lecturing others on the mechanics and accusing them of making shit up, all the while running willy-nilly with your head stuffed up your ass.
Lol. Nice work, dumbshit.
And, in the event that you still think I'm "making this up" or "not understanding" here you go.
Opinion | House Dems won't beat Trump with legislative loopholes. But there's another way.
"For one thing, a congressional contempt citation like the one the House Judiciary Committee issued for Barr on Wednesday is evanescent. The process is almost comically inefficient, and requires the contempt citation to be eventually approved by the full House. The citation also expires at the end of the Congress that issued it. When a new Congress is seated, it can start again. "
Next time bring a clue.....
Rita Lavelle
and that one was in court way after congress ended for the year.and was finally found guilty and was imprisoned and fined
So fuckhead you are full of bullshit. Your just another red neck hater, MY guess would be a old fat white guy.
Put the shovel down you giant bag of stupid.
The subpeonas and any citations for contempt expire with the session that issued them. The ensuing session can start the process again, but deals with the same limitations.
I've cited a supporting resource and others are freely available for anyone with 30 seconds and the knowledge to simply use google FFS.
Now either take this opportunity to learn something you didnt know and improve yourself or STFU and take your blithering ignorance somewhere else.
ignore folks , hot shot here is wasting bandwidth.Bullshit I gave you proof that your smoking wacko weed . one more time Rita Lavelle was prosecuted for contempt of congress , her court session went on for a long time after congress stopped hearings and she was thrown in jail and fined , there is no other contemporary references because all others gave into congress when they were charged with contempt of congress , I'm ignoring this cookoo from now on but if your interested in this simply google Rita Lavelle.The problem is idiot that you don't know what your talking about, every single contempt of congress in recent history, when confronted with the prison time and the fine that goes with the contemn of congress charge have all broken down and gave up and turned over the information that congress demanded of them. but one,it makes no sense. and you already have been corrected . The logic of your interpretation, erase that , the shit you made up isn't true. or logical'
Eithe in the case of Rita Lavelle was sent to jail and all the rest gave into congress and gave the information asked for. Add in the fact that this also can be run in civil court and it will be in place till a judgement by the court. Where would you even get a stupid idea that the only time congress can effect charges against people who won't testifies if once subpoenaed is only during the time that congress was in progress, I mean think about that. You have zero clue , your either lying or misunderstood something or don't have the capacity to think.
It makes perfect sense moron.
I explained the logic clearly, i thought, but ill try again as you are clearly a bit dense.
Congress convenes in segments called sessions.
Got that much? Good.
Now a given session of congress is itself a legal entity. It issues a subpeona. The session is the legal entity filing the subpeona, not Adam Schiff, or whoever.
Got that, dummy?
Now the session ends and a New Session convenes.
It is a new legal entity.
The prior session's subpeonas and contempt citations die, because that session no longer exists. How that is so difficult to grasp I really dont know. If the new session would like to re-issue it can.
Have you ever stopped in the midst of your blathering fits of blind ranting to ask why people so often ignore these and get away with it. Hmmm?
Well, now you know one of the reasons, dumbfuck. They can play legal games long enough to run out the clock on the legal entity that issued them.
How fucking dumb does a person have to be to not see that while lecturing others on the mechanics and accusing them of making shit up, all the while running willy-nilly with your head stuffed up your ass.
Lol. Nice work, dumbshit.
And, in the event that you still think I'm "making this up" or "not understanding" here you go.
Opinion | House Dems won't beat Trump with legislative loopholes. But there's another way.
"For one thing, a congressional contempt citation like the one the House Judiciary Committee issued for Barr on Wednesday is evanescent. The process is almost comically inefficient, and requires the contempt citation to be eventually approved by the full House. The citation also expires at the end of the Congress that issued it. When a new Congress is seated, it can start again. "
Next time bring a clue.....
Rita Lavelle
and that one was in court way after congress ended for the year.and was finally found guilty and was imprisoned and fined
So fuckhead you are full of bullshit. Your just another red neck hater, MY guess would be a old fat white guy.
Put the shovel down you giant bag of stupid.
The subpeonas and any citations for contempt expire with the session that issued them. The ensuing session can start the process again, but deals with the same limitations.
I've cited a supporting resource and others are freely available for anyone with 30 seconds and the knowledge to simply use google FFS.
Now either take this opportunity to learn something you didnt know and improve yourself or STFU and take your blithering ignorance somewhere else.
What I am saying is binary. It is either right or wrong and it is 100% correct. The subpoenas and contempt citations expire at end of session. Period, end of story.
You are referencing a court case, dimwit, which is neither of those things. But we'll get back to that later.
There are plenty of references also of those that did not give in. Here are some more (as I said just use the Google)
AG William Barr could face contempt of Congress charges. How often does that happen?
1. Harriet Miers
"Former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who had left office by the time the subpoena was issued, refused to provide documents or testify under a claim of executive privilege, which ensures the confidentiality of advice given the president from his advisers so that they may speak candidly......
The House adopted a pair of resolutions on a vote of 223-32 in February 2008 to refer her for prosecution and to authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas. But the Justice Department declined to prosecute.
A U.S. district court affirmed Congress’s right to information in July 2008 and said Miers didn’t have absolute immunity from testifying, but she could assert executive privilege in response to specific questions. The court made no explicit comment about punishing executive-branch officials for contempt.
The administration appealed the ruling but no decision was reached before the Congress ended in January 2009. At that point, the subpoena and contempt citation each expired.
Lawmakers and the White House reached a settlement in March 2009 for some of the documents requested and for Miers to testify at a closed hearing."
I'd say we're done debating whether or not these things have an expiration date. You are 100% wrong about this.
You cited a court case which I said in my very first post would drag on past the next election, let's talk about those.
I'm going to teach you something else about this process now, which you apparently know nothing about, but started a thread on it anyhow, which is hilarious to me. Even funnier that you are lecturing others on how all this works when you clearly don't actually know yourself. That is called pulling shit from one's ass, FTR.
Anyhow, I underlined a couple of things in the paragraphs above and did so for a reason.
In the event that someone does not comply with these subpoenas and citations, congress CAN authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce, but guess what, lord of cluelessness regarding your own thread? The DOJ can simply decide whether or not to prosecute, so, as would likely happen in this case, did happen in the case of Eric Holder, when Congress moved to exercise that right, the DOJ simply said 'No', cause they could, and refused to prosecute.
Now if this happens Congress can up it another notch they can file a Federal lawsuit, as they did with Holder. And guess what, that case dragged on for over 6 years.
From the article cited above:
2. Eric Holder
"•In November 2011, former Attorney General Eric Holder conceded to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department provided inaccurate information about a gun-running investigation called Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in thousands of guns being smuggled to drug cartels in Mexico.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later subpoenaed documents about the program and Holder refused to fully comply. The House voted 255-67 in June 2012 to find him in contempt and refer him for prosecution. A second resolution approved by a vote of 258-95 authorized a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena.
Then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified the House the same day as the votes that the department wouldn’t prosecute Holder because his response to the subpoena “does not constitute a crime.”
The committee then filed a federal lawsuit in August 2012 to enforce the subpoena, in a case that dragged on more than six years."
Is it becoming clear now why people aren't running around with their hair on fire to 'do something to get these people in now'? If not I'll spell it out.
Congress has limited powers to enforce their own subpoenas and citations, relying on the DOJ to prosecute the civil case if it gets that far after someone ignores a subpoena and/or a citation and the Congress votes to file a civil case. It should be obvious why. Congress is not a court. The Judicial Branch handles that stuff.
So, in cases similar to where we find ourselves now where the DOJ is run by the party being pursued (and was the case with Holder) that short-circuits the civil lawsuit when the DOJ simply refuses to prosecute.
Their next option is a federal case- which will drag on far longer than the results will be politically useful and would likely extend beyond Trump's next term if there is one, so there is no realistic mechanism to force anyone to do a damn thing in a timeframe that is actually useful.
On a simple common-sense level isn't it obvious that if the Dems could compel in a timeframe that made sense they absolutely, 110% would? Of course they would, FFS. If they had realistic options they'd be exercising the hell out of them.
Nice thread through. LOL.
Bullshit I gave you proof that your smoking wacko weed . one more time Rita Lavelle was prosecuted for contempt of congress , her court session went on for a long time after congress stopped hearings and she was thrown in jail and fined , there is no other contemporary references because all others gave into congress when they were charged with contempt of congress , I'm ignoring this cookoo from now on but if your interested in this simply google Rita Lavelle.The problem is idiot that you don't know what your talking about, every single contempt of congress in recent history, when confronted with the prison time and the fine that goes with the contemn of congress charge have all broken down and gave up and turned over the information that congress demanded of them. but one,it makes no sense. and you already have been corrected . The logic of your interpretation, erase that , the shit you made up isn't true. or logical'
Eithe in the case of Rita Lavelle was sent to jail and all the rest gave into congress and gave the information asked for. Add in the fact that this also can be run in civil court and it will be in place till a judgement by the court. Where would you even get a stupid idea that the only time congress can effect charges against people who won't testifies if once subpoenaed is only during the time that congress was in progress, I mean think about that. You have zero clue , your either lying or misunderstood something or don't have the capacity to think.
It makes perfect sense moron.
I explained the logic clearly, i thought, but ill try again as you are clearly a bit dense.
Congress convenes in segments called sessions.
Got that much? Good.
Now a given session of congress is itself a legal entity. It issues a subpeona. The session is the legal entity filing the subpeona, not Adam Schiff, or whoever.
Got that, dummy?
Now the session ends and a New Session convenes.
It is a new legal entity.
The prior session's subpeonas and contempt citations die, because that session no longer exists. How that is so difficult to grasp I really dont know. If the new session would like to re-issue it can.
Have you ever stopped in the midst of your blathering fits of blind ranting to ask why people so often ignore these and get away with it. Hmmm?
Well, now you know one of the reasons, dumbfuck. They can play legal games long enough to run out the clock on the legal entity that issued them.
How fucking dumb does a person have to be to not see that while lecturing others on the mechanics and accusing them of making shit up, all the while running willy-nilly with your head stuffed up your ass.
Lol. Nice work, dumbshit.
And, in the event that you still think I'm "making this up" or "not understanding" here you go.
Opinion | House Dems won't beat Trump with legislative loopholes. But there's another way.
"For one thing, a congressional contempt citation like the one the House Judiciary Committee issued for Barr on Wednesday is evanescent. The process is almost comically inefficient, and requires the contempt citation to be eventually approved by the full House. The citation also expires at the end of the Congress that issued it. When a new Congress is seated, it can start again. "
Next time bring a clue.....
Rita Lavelle
and that one was in court way after congress ended for the year.and was finally found guilty and was imprisoned and fined
So fuckhead you are full of bullshit. Your just another red neck hater, MY guess would be a old fat white guy.
Put the shovel down you giant bag of stupid.
The subpeonas and any citations for contempt expire with the session that issued them. The ensuing session can start the process again, but deals with the same limitations.
I've cited a supporting resource and others are freely available for anyone with 30 seconds and the knowledge to simply use google FFS.
Now either take this opportunity to learn something you didnt know and improve yourself or STFU and take your blithering ignorance somewhere else.
What I am saying is binary. It is either right or wrong and it is 100% correct. The subpoenas and contempt citations expire at end of session. Period, end of story.
You are referencing a court case, dimwit, which is neither of those things. But we'll get back to that later.
There are plenty of references also of those that did not give in. Here are some more (as I said just use the Google)
AG William Barr could face contempt of Congress charges. How often does that happen?
1. Harriet Miers
"Former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who had left office by the time the subpoena was issued, refused to provide documents or testify under a claim of executive privilege, which ensures the confidentiality of advice given the president from his advisers so that they may speak candidly......
The House adopted a pair of resolutions on a vote of 223-32 in February 2008 to refer her for prosecution and to authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas. But the Justice Department declined to prosecute.
A U.S. district court affirmed Congress’s right to information in July 2008 and said Miers didn’t have absolute immunity from testifying, but she could assert executive privilege in response to specific questions. The court made no explicit comment about punishing executive-branch officials for contempt.
The administration appealed the ruling but no decision was reached before the Congress ended in January 2009. At that point, the subpoena and contempt citation each expired.
Lawmakers and the White House reached a settlement in March 2009 for some of the documents requested and for Miers to testify at a closed hearing."
I'd say we're done debating whether or not these things have an expiration date. You are 100% wrong about this.
You cited a court case which I said in my very first post would drag on past the next election, let's talk about those.
I'm going to teach you something else about this process now, which you apparently know nothing about, but started a thread on it anyhow, which is hilarious to me. Even funnier that you are lecturing others on how all this works when you clearly don't actually know yourself. That is called pulling shit from one's ass, FTR.
Anyhow, I underlined a couple of things in the paragraphs above and did so for a reason.
In the event that someone does not comply with these subpoenas and citations, congress CAN authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce, but guess what, lord of cluelessness regarding your own thread? The DOJ can simply decide whether or not to prosecute, so, as would likely happen in this case, did happen in the case of Eric Holder, when Congress moved to exercise that right, the DOJ simply said 'No', cause they could, and refused to prosecute.
Now if this happens Congress can up it another notch they can file a Federal lawsuit, as they did with Holder. And guess what, that case dragged on for over 6 years.
From the article cited above:
2. Eric Holder
"•In November 2011, former Attorney General Eric Holder conceded to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department provided inaccurate information about a gun-running investigation called Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in thousands of guns being smuggled to drug cartels in Mexico.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later subpoenaed documents about the program and Holder refused to fully comply. The House voted 255-67 in June 2012 to find him in contempt and refer him for prosecution. A second resolution approved by a vote of 258-95 authorized a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena.
Then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified the House the same day as the votes that the department wouldn’t prosecute Holder because his response to the subpoena “does not constitute a crime.”
The committee then filed a federal lawsuit in August 2012 to enforce the subpoena, in a case that dragged on more than six years."
Is it becoming clear now why people aren't running around with their hair on fire to 'do something to get these people in now'? If not I'll spell it out.
Congress has limited powers to enforce their own subpoenas and citations, relying on the DOJ to prosecute the civil case if it gets that far after someone ignores a subpoena and/or a citation and the Congress votes to file a civil case. It should be obvious why. Congress is not a court. The Judicial Branch handles that stuff.
So, in cases similar to where we find ourselves now where the DOJ is run by the party being pursued (and was the case with Holder) that short-circuits the civil lawsuit when the DOJ simply refuses to prosecute.
Their next option is a federal case- which will drag on far longer than the results will be politically useful and would likely extend beyond Trump's next term if there is one, so there is no realistic mechanism to force anyone to do a damn thing in a timeframe that is actually useful.
On a simple common-sense level isn't it obvious that if the Dems could compel in a timeframe that made sense they absolutely, 110% would? Of course they would, FFS. If they had realistic options they'd be exercising the hell out of them.
Nice thread through. LOL.
ignore folks , hot shot here is wasting bandwidth.Bullshit I gave you proof that your smoking wacko weed . one more time Rita Lavelle was prosecuted for contempt of congress , her court session went on for a long time after congress stopped hearings and she was thrown in jail and fined , there is no other contemporary references because all others gave into congress when they were charged with contempt of congress , I'm ignoring this cookoo from now on but if your interested in this simply google Rita Lavelle.The problem is idiot that you don't know what your talking about, every single contempt of congress in recent history, when confronted with the prison time and the fine that goes with the contemn of congress charge have all broken down and gave up and turned over the information that congress demanded of them. but one,It makes perfect sense moron.
I explained the logic clearly, i thought, but ill try again as you are clearly a bit dense.
Congress convenes in segments called sessions.
Got that much? Good.
Now a given session of congress is itself a legal entity. It issues a subpeona. The session is the legal entity filing the subpeona, not Adam Schiff, or whoever.
Got that, dummy?
Now the session ends and a New Session convenes.
It is a new legal entity.
The prior session's subpeonas and contempt citations die, because that session no longer exists. How that is so difficult to grasp I really dont know. If the new session would like to re-issue it can.
Have you ever stopped in the midst of your blathering fits of blind ranting to ask why people so often ignore these and get away with it. Hmmm?
Well, now you know one of the reasons, dumbfuck. They can play legal games long enough to run out the clock on the legal entity that issued them.
How fucking dumb does a person have to be to not see that while lecturing others on the mechanics and accusing them of making shit up, all the while running willy-nilly with your head stuffed up your ass.
Lol. Nice work, dumbshit.
And, in the event that you still think I'm "making this up" or "not understanding" here you go.
Opinion | House Dems won't beat Trump with legislative loopholes. But there's another way.
"For one thing, a congressional contempt citation like the one the House Judiciary Committee issued for Barr on Wednesday is evanescent. The process is almost comically inefficient, and requires the contempt citation to be eventually approved by the full House. The citation also expires at the end of the Congress that issued it. When a new Congress is seated, it can start again. "
Next time bring a clue.....
Rita Lavelle
and that one was in court way after congress ended for the year.and was finally found guilty and was imprisoned and fined
So fuckhead you are full of bullshit. Your just another red neck hater, MY guess would be a old fat white guy.
Put the shovel down you giant bag of stupid.
The subpeonas and any citations for contempt expire with the session that issued them. The ensuing session can start the process again, but deals with the same limitations.
I've cited a supporting resource and others are freely available for anyone with 30 seconds and the knowledge to simply use google FFS.
Now either take this opportunity to learn something you didnt know and improve yourself or STFU and take your blithering ignorance somewhere else.
What I am saying is binary. It is either right or wrong and it is 100% correct. The subpoenas and contempt citations expire at end of session. Period, end of story.
You are referencing a court case, dimwit, which is neither of those things. But we'll get back to that later.
There are plenty of references also of those that did not give in. Here are some more (as I said just use the Google)
AG William Barr could face contempt of Congress charges. How often does that happen?
1. Harriet Miers
"Former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who had left office by the time the subpoena was issued, refused to provide documents or testify under a claim of executive privilege, which ensures the confidentiality of advice given the president from his advisers so that they may speak candidly......
The House adopted a pair of resolutions on a vote of 223-32 in February 2008 to refer her for prosecution and to authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas. But the Justice Department declined to prosecute.
A U.S. district court affirmed Congress’s right to information in July 2008 and said Miers didn’t have absolute immunity from testifying, but she could assert executive privilege in response to specific questions. The court made no explicit comment about punishing executive-branch officials for contempt.
The administration appealed the ruling but no decision was reached before the Congress ended in January 2009. At that point, the subpoena and contempt citation each expired.
Lawmakers and the White House reached a settlement in March 2009 for some of the documents requested and for Miers to testify at a closed hearing."
I'd say we're done debating whether or not these things have an expiration date. You are 100% wrong about this.
You cited a court case which I said in my very first post would drag on past the next election, let's talk about those.
I'm going to teach you something else about this process now, which you apparently know nothing about, but started a thread on it anyhow, which is hilarious to me. Even funnier that you are lecturing others on how all this works when you clearly don't actually know yourself. That is called pulling shit from one's ass, FTR.
Anyhow, I underlined a couple of things in the paragraphs above and did so for a reason.
In the event that someone does not comply with these subpoenas and citations, congress CAN authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce, but guess what, lord of cluelessness regarding your own thread? The DOJ can simply decide whether or not to prosecute, so, as would likely happen in this case, did happen in the case of Eric Holder, when Congress moved to exercise that right, the DOJ simply said 'No', cause they could, and refused to prosecute.
Now if this happens Congress can up it another notch they can file a Federal lawsuit, as they did with Holder. And guess what, that case dragged on for over 6 years.
From the article cited above:
2. Eric Holder
"•In November 2011, former Attorney General Eric Holder conceded to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department provided inaccurate information about a gun-running investigation called Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in thousands of guns being smuggled to drug cartels in Mexico.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later subpoenaed documents about the program and Holder refused to fully comply. The House voted 255-67 in June 2012 to find him in contempt and refer him for prosecution. A second resolution approved by a vote of 258-95 authorized a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena.
Then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified the House the same day as the votes that the department wouldn’t prosecute Holder because his response to the subpoena “does not constitute a crime.”
The committee then filed a federal lawsuit in August 2012 to enforce the subpoena, in a case that dragged on more than six years."
Is it becoming clear now why people aren't running around with their hair on fire to 'do something to get these people in now'? If not I'll spell it out.
Congress has limited powers to enforce their own subpoenas and citations, relying on the DOJ to prosecute the civil case if it gets that far after someone ignores a subpoena and/or a citation and the Congress votes to file a civil case. It should be obvious why. Congress is not a court. The Judicial Branch handles that stuff.
So, in cases similar to where we find ourselves now where the DOJ is run by the party being pursued (and was the case with Holder) that short-circuits the civil lawsuit when the DOJ simply refuses to prosecute.
Their next option is a federal case- which will drag on far longer than the results will be politically useful and would likely extend beyond Trump's next term if there is one, so there is no realistic mechanism to force anyone to do a damn thing in a timeframe that is actually useful.
On a simple common-sense level isn't it obvious that if the Dems could compel in a timeframe that made sense they absolutely, 110% would? Of course they would, FFS. If they had realistic options they'd be exercising the hell out of them.
Nice thread through. LOL.
Good grief they can put you directly in jail without a court hearing. if they want. Looking at the history of contempt of court shows that once charged the people in contempt give in, so the threat seems to work. They can be criminally charged or civilly charged.Bullshit I gave you proof that your smoking wacko weed . one more time Rita Lavelle was prosecuted for contempt of congress , her court session went on for a long time after congress stopped hearings and she was thrown in jail and fined , there is no other contemporary references because all others gave into congress when they were charged with contempt of congress , I'm ignoring this cookoo from now on but if your interested in this simply google Rita Lavelle.The problem is idiot that you don't know what your talking about, every single contempt of congress in recent history, when confronted with the prison time and the fine that goes with the contemn of congress charge have all broken down and gave up and turned over the information that congress demanded of them. but one,It makes perfect sense moron.
I explained the logic clearly, i thought, but ill try again as you are clearly a bit dense.
Congress convenes in segments called sessions.
Got that much? Good.
Now a given session of congress is itself a legal entity. It issues a subpeona. The session is the legal entity filing the subpeona, not Adam Schiff, or whoever.
Got that, dummy?
Now the session ends and a New Session convenes.
It is a new legal entity.
The prior session's subpeonas and contempt citations die, because that session no longer exists. How that is so difficult to grasp I really dont know. If the new session would like to re-issue it can.
Have you ever stopped in the midst of your blathering fits of blind ranting to ask why people so often ignore these and get away with it. Hmmm?
Well, now you know one of the reasons, dumbfuck. They can play legal games long enough to run out the clock on the legal entity that issued them.
How fucking dumb does a person have to be to not see that while lecturing others on the mechanics and accusing them of making shit up, all the while running willy-nilly with your head stuffed up your ass.
Lol. Nice work, dumbshit.
And, in the event that you still think I'm "making this up" or "not understanding" here you go.
Opinion | House Dems won't beat Trump with legislative loopholes. But there's another way.
"For one thing, a congressional contempt citation like the one the House Judiciary Committee issued for Barr on Wednesday is evanescent. The process is almost comically inefficient, and requires the contempt citation to be eventually approved by the full House. The citation also expires at the end of the Congress that issued it. When a new Congress is seated, it can start again. "
Next time bring a clue.....
Rita Lavelle
and that one was in court way after congress ended for the year.and was finally found guilty and was imprisoned and fined
So fuckhead you are full of bullshit. Your just another red neck hater, MY guess would be a old fat white guy.
Put the shovel down you giant bag of stupid.
The subpeonas and any citations for contempt expire with the session that issued them. The ensuing session can start the process again, but deals with the same limitations.
I've cited a supporting resource and others are freely available for anyone with 30 seconds and the knowledge to simply use google FFS.
Now either take this opportunity to learn something you didnt know and improve yourself or STFU and take your blithering ignorance somewhere else.
What I am saying is binary. It is either right or wrong and it is 100% correct. The subpoenas and contempt citations expire at end of session. Period, end of story.
You are referencing a court case, dimwit, which is neither of those things. But we'll get back to that later.
There are plenty of references also of those that did not give in. Here are some more (as I said just use the Google)
AG William Barr could face contempt of Congress charges. How often does that happen?
1. Harriet Miers
"Former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who had left office by the time the subpoena was issued, refused to provide documents or testify under a claim of executive privilege, which ensures the confidentiality of advice given the president from his advisers so that they may speak candidly......
The House adopted a pair of resolutions on a vote of 223-32 in February 2008 to refer her for prosecution and to authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas. But the Justice Department declined to prosecute.
A U.S. district court affirmed Congress’s right to information in July 2008 and said Miers didn’t have absolute immunity from testifying, but she could assert executive privilege in response to specific questions. The court made no explicit comment about punishing executive-branch officials for contempt.
The administration appealed the ruling but no decision was reached before the Congress ended in January 2009. At that point, the subpoena and contempt citation each expired.
Lawmakers and the White House reached a settlement in March 2009 for some of the documents requested and for Miers to testify at a closed hearing."
I'd say we're done debating whether or not these things have an expiration date. You are 100% wrong about this.
You cited a court case which I said in my very first post would drag on past the next election, let's talk about those.
I'm going to teach you something else about this process now, which you apparently know nothing about, but started a thread on it anyhow, which is hilarious to me. Even funnier that you are lecturing others on how all this works when you clearly don't actually know yourself. That is called pulling shit from one's ass, FTR.
Anyhow, I underlined a couple of things in the paragraphs above and did so for a reason.
In the event that someone does not comply with these subpoenas and citations, congress CAN authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce, but guess what, lord of cluelessness regarding your own thread? The DOJ can simply decide whether or not to prosecute, so, as would likely happen in this case, did happen in the case of Eric Holder, when Congress moved to exercise that right, the DOJ simply said 'No', cause they could, and refused to prosecute.
Now if this happens Congress can up it another notch they can file a Federal lawsuit, as they did with Holder. And guess what, that case dragged on for over 6 years.
From the article cited above:
2. Eric Holder
"•In November 2011, former Attorney General Eric Holder conceded to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department provided inaccurate information about a gun-running investigation called Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in thousands of guns being smuggled to drug cartels in Mexico.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later subpoenaed documents about the program and Holder refused to fully comply. The House voted 255-67 in June 2012 to find him in contempt and refer him for prosecution. A second resolution approved by a vote of 258-95 authorized a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena.
Then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified the House the same day as the votes that the department wouldn’t prosecute Holder because his response to the subpoena “does not constitute a crime.”
The committee then filed a federal lawsuit in August 2012 to enforce the subpoena, in a case that dragged on more than six years."
Is it becoming clear now why people aren't running around with their hair on fire to 'do something to get these people in now'? If not I'll spell it out.
Congress has limited powers to enforce their own subpoenas and citations, relying on the DOJ to prosecute the civil case if it gets that far after someone ignores a subpoena and/or a citation and the Congress votes to file a civil case. It should be obvious why. Congress is not a court. The Judicial Branch handles that stuff.
So, in cases similar to where we find ourselves now where the DOJ is run by the party being pursued (and was the case with Holder) that short-circuits the civil lawsuit when the DOJ simply refuses to prosecute.
Their next option is a federal case- which will drag on far longer than the results will be politically useful and would likely extend beyond Trump's next term if there is one, so there is no realistic mechanism to force anyone to do a damn thing in a timeframe that is actually useful.
On a simple common-sense level isn't it obvious that if the Dems could compel in a timeframe that made sense they absolutely, 110% would? Of course they would, FFS. If they had realistic options they'd be exercising the hell out of them.
Nice thread through. LOL.
Exactly right. Congress really has no enforcement authority over the Executive Branch. Chaffetz in his books always whines about that. Eric Holder wears his many "Contempt of Congress" medals proudly.
Good grief they can put you directly in jail without a court hearing. if they want. Looking at the history of contempt of court shows that once charged the people in contempt give in, so the threat seems to work. They can be criminally charged or civilly charged.Bullshit I gave you proof that your smoking wacko weed . one more time Rita Lavelle was prosecuted for contempt of congress , her court session went on for a long time after congress stopped hearings and she was thrown in jail and fined , there is no other contemporary references because all others gave into congress when they were charged with contempt of congress , I'm ignoring this cookoo from now on but if your interested in this simply google Rita Lavelle.The problem is idiot that you don't know what your talking about, every single contempt of congress in recent history, when confronted with the prison time and the fine that goes with the contemn of congress charge have all broken down and gave up and turned over the information that congress demanded of them. but one,
Rita Lavelle
and that one was in court way after congress ended for the year.and was finally found guilty and was imprisoned and fined
So fuckhead you are full of bullshit. Your just another red neck hater, MY guess would be a old fat white guy.
Put the shovel down you giant bag of stupid.
The subpeonas and any citations for contempt expire with the session that issued them. The ensuing session can start the process again, but deals with the same limitations.
I've cited a supporting resource and others are freely available for anyone with 30 seconds and the knowledge to simply use google FFS.
Now either take this opportunity to learn something you didnt know and improve yourself or STFU and take your blithering ignorance somewhere else.
What I am saying is binary. It is either right or wrong and it is 100% correct. The subpoenas and contempt citations expire at end of session. Period, end of story.
You are referencing a court case, dimwit, which is neither of those things. But we'll get back to that later.
There are plenty of references also of those that did not give in. Here are some more (as I said just use the Google)
AG William Barr could face contempt of Congress charges. How often does that happen?
1. Harriet Miers
"Former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who had left office by the time the subpoena was issued, refused to provide documents or testify under a claim of executive privilege, which ensures the confidentiality of advice given the president from his advisers so that they may speak candidly......
The House adopted a pair of resolutions on a vote of 223-32 in February 2008 to refer her for prosecution and to authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas. But the Justice Department declined to prosecute.
A U.S. district court affirmed Congress’s right to information in July 2008 and said Miers didn’t have absolute immunity from testifying, but she could assert executive privilege in response to specific questions. The court made no explicit comment about punishing executive-branch officials for contempt.
The administration appealed the ruling but no decision was reached before the Congress ended in January 2009. At that point, the subpoena and contempt citation each expired.
Lawmakers and the White House reached a settlement in March 2009 for some of the documents requested and for Miers to testify at a closed hearing."
I'd say we're done debating whether or not these things have an expiration date. You are 100% wrong about this.
You cited a court case which I said in my very first post would drag on past the next election, let's talk about those.
I'm going to teach you something else about this process now, which you apparently know nothing about, but started a thread on it anyhow, which is hilarious to me. Even funnier that you are lecturing others on how all this works when you clearly don't actually know yourself. That is called pulling shit from one's ass, FTR.
Anyhow, I underlined a couple of things in the paragraphs above and did so for a reason.
In the event that someone does not comply with these subpoenas and citations, congress CAN authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce, but guess what, lord of cluelessness regarding your own thread? The DOJ can simply decide whether or not to prosecute, so, as would likely happen in this case, did happen in the case of Eric Holder, when Congress moved to exercise that right, the DOJ simply said 'No', cause they could, and refused to prosecute.
Now if this happens Congress can up it another notch they can file a Federal lawsuit, as they did with Holder. And guess what, that case dragged on for over 6 years.
From the article cited above:
2. Eric Holder
"•In November 2011, former Attorney General Eric Holder conceded to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department provided inaccurate information about a gun-running investigation called Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in thousands of guns being smuggled to drug cartels in Mexico.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later subpoenaed documents about the program and Holder refused to fully comply. The House voted 255-67 in June 2012 to find him in contempt and refer him for prosecution. A second resolution approved by a vote of 258-95 authorized a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena.
Then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified the House the same day as the votes that the department wouldn’t prosecute Holder because his response to the subpoena “does not constitute a crime.”
The committee then filed a federal lawsuit in August 2012 to enforce the subpoena, in a case that dragged on more than six years."
Is it becoming clear now why people aren't running around with their hair on fire to 'do something to get these people in now'? If not I'll spell it out.
Congress has limited powers to enforce their own subpoenas and citations, relying on the DOJ to prosecute the civil case if it gets that far after someone ignores a subpoena and/or a citation and the Congress votes to file a civil case. It should be obvious why. Congress is not a court. The Judicial Branch handles that stuff.
So, in cases similar to where we find ourselves now where the DOJ is run by the party being pursued (and was the case with Holder) that short-circuits the civil lawsuit when the DOJ simply refuses to prosecute.
Their next option is a federal case- which will drag on far longer than the results will be politically useful and would likely extend beyond Trump's next term if there is one, so there is no realistic mechanism to force anyone to do a damn thing in a timeframe that is actually useful.
On a simple common-sense level isn't it obvious that if the Dems could compel in a timeframe that made sense they absolutely, 110% would? Of course they would, FFS. If they had realistic options they'd be exercising the hell out of them.
Nice thread through. LOL.
Exactly right. Congress really has no enforcement authority over the Executive Branch. Chaffetz in his books always whines about that. Eric Holder wears his many "Contempt of Congress" medals proudly.
Don't waste your time he will blabber on for every no matter what you stick in front of his nose. Congress has enough control to compel witnesses to talk .They haven't had to test that since literally every single person once charged have given in to the charge and went in front of the congress and answered their question. Where do you people get your information, There is no history of their potential actions only because they The person who has been charged has given in to Congress . Lets try it this way show us in contemporary times how anyone has gotten around The charges by congress other then congress just stopping their action and dropping the charges. Congress can play this game exactly the way scum bag can, they can Lock the witness up and they can fine to the full extent of the law and let the individual do what is needed to get out of it. Putting the burden on the accused, Congress is supported in these action will laws and presedence .ignore folks , hot shot here is wasting bandwidth.Bullshit I gave you proof that your smoking wacko weed . one more time Rita Lavelle was prosecuted for contempt of congress , her court session went on for a long time after congress stopped hearings and she was thrown in jail and fined , there is no other contemporary references because all others gave into congress when they were charged with contempt of congress , I'm ignoring this cookoo from now on but if your interested in this simply google Rita Lavelle.The problem is idiot that you don't know what your talking about, every single contempt of congress in recent history, when confronted with the prison time and the fine that goes with the contemn of congress charge have all broken down and gave up and turned over the information that congress demanded of them. but one,
Rita Lavelle
and that one was in court way after congress ended for the year.and was finally found guilty and was imprisoned and fined
So fuckhead you are full of bullshit. Your just another red neck hater, MY guess would be a old fat white guy.
Put the shovel down you giant bag of stupid.
The subpeonas and any citations for contempt expire with the session that issued them. The ensuing session can start the process again, but deals with the same limitations.
I've cited a supporting resource and others are freely available for anyone with 30 seconds and the knowledge to simply use google FFS.
Now either take this opportunity to learn something you didnt know and improve yourself or STFU and take your blithering ignorance somewhere else.
What I am saying is binary. It is either right or wrong and it is 100% correct. The subpoenas and contempt citations expire at end of session. Period, end of story.
You are referencing a court case, dimwit, which is neither of those things. But we'll get back to that later.
There are plenty of references also of those that did not give in. Here are some more (as I said just use the Google)
AG William Barr could face contempt of Congress charges. How often does that happen?
1. Harriet Miers
"Former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who had left office by the time the subpoena was issued, refused to provide documents or testify under a claim of executive privilege, which ensures the confidentiality of advice given the president from his advisers so that they may speak candidly......
The House adopted a pair of resolutions on a vote of 223-32 in February 2008 to refer her for prosecution and to authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas. But the Justice Department declined to prosecute.
A U.S. district court affirmed Congress’s right to information in July 2008 and said Miers didn’t have absolute immunity from testifying, but she could assert executive privilege in response to specific questions. The court made no explicit comment about punishing executive-branch officials for contempt.
The administration appealed the ruling but no decision was reached before the Congress ended in January 2009. At that point, the subpoena and contempt citation each expired.
Lawmakers and the White House reached a settlement in March 2009 for some of the documents requested and for Miers to testify at a closed hearing."
I'd say we're done debating whether or not these things have an expiration date. You are 100% wrong about this.
You cited a court case which I said in my very first post would drag on past the next election, let's talk about those.
I'm going to teach you something else about this process now, which you apparently know nothing about, but started a thread on it anyhow, which is hilarious to me. Even funnier that you are lecturing others on how all this works when you clearly don't actually know yourself. That is called pulling shit from one's ass, FTR.
Anyhow, I underlined a couple of things in the paragraphs above and did so for a reason.
In the event that someone does not comply with these subpoenas and citations, congress CAN authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce, but guess what, lord of cluelessness regarding your own thread? The DOJ can simply decide whether or not to prosecute, so, as would likely happen in this case, did happen in the case of Eric Holder, when Congress moved to exercise that right, the DOJ simply said 'No', cause they could, and refused to prosecute.
Now if this happens Congress can up it another notch they can file a Federal lawsuit, as they did with Holder. And guess what, that case dragged on for over 6 years.
From the article cited above:
2. Eric Holder
"•In November 2011, former Attorney General Eric Holder conceded to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department provided inaccurate information about a gun-running investigation called Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in thousands of guns being smuggled to drug cartels in Mexico.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later subpoenaed documents about the program and Holder refused to fully comply. The House voted 255-67 in June 2012 to find him in contempt and refer him for prosecution. A second resolution approved by a vote of 258-95 authorized a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena.
Then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified the House the same day as the votes that the department wouldn’t prosecute Holder because his response to the subpoena “does not constitute a crime.”
The committee then filed a federal lawsuit in August 2012 to enforce the subpoena, in a case that dragged on more than six years."
Is it becoming clear now why people aren't running around with their hair on fire to 'do something to get these people in now'? If not I'll spell it out.
Congress has limited powers to enforce their own subpoenas and citations, relying on the DOJ to prosecute the civil case if it gets that far after someone ignores a subpoena and/or a citation and the Congress votes to file a civil case. It should be obvious why. Congress is not a court. The Judicial Branch handles that stuff.
So, in cases similar to where we find ourselves now where the DOJ is run by the party being pursued (and was the case with Holder) that short-circuits the civil lawsuit when the DOJ simply refuses to prosecute.
Their next option is a federal case- which will drag on far longer than the results will be politically useful and would likely extend beyond Trump's next term if there is one, so there is no realistic mechanism to force anyone to do a damn thing in a timeframe that is actually useful.
On a simple common-sense level isn't it obvious that if the Dems could compel in a timeframe that made sense they absolutely, 110% would? Of course they would, FFS. If they had realistic options they'd be exercising the hell out of them.
Nice thread through. LOL.
No wonder you'd like people to ignore this thread. LOL.
This is procedure, not opinion or political spin or anything else. It's how it works, I cited things to support what I said, and I think you know I'm right but are too small to simply admit it. Wallowing in ignorance is easier than admitting you're wrong.
Next time before starting a thread, lecturing people on facts when you don't know what they are and calling them liars check your ass first to make sure your head isn't in it. m'kay?
Now run along little partisan worm.....
No there are many more example but I simply drew from late history.Good grief they can put you directly in jail without a court hearing. if they want. Looking at the history of contempt of court shows that once charged the people in contempt give in, so the threat seems to work. They can be criminally charged or civilly charged.Bullshit I gave you proof that your smoking wacko weed . one more time Rita Lavelle was prosecuted for contempt of congress , her court session went on for a long time after congress stopped hearings and she was thrown in jail and fined , there is no other contemporary references because all others gave into congress when they were charged with contempt of congress , I'm ignoring this cookoo from now on but if your interested in this simply google Rita Lavelle.Put the shovel down you giant bag of stupid.
The subpeonas and any citations for contempt expire with the session that issued them. The ensuing session can start the process again, but deals with the same limitations.
I've cited a supporting resource and others are freely available for anyone with 30 seconds and the knowledge to simply use google FFS.
Now either take this opportunity to learn something you didnt know and improve yourself or STFU and take your blithering ignorance somewhere else.
What I am saying is binary. It is either right or wrong and it is 100% correct. The subpoenas and contempt citations expire at end of session. Period, end of story.
You are referencing a court case, dimwit, which is neither of those things. But we'll get back to that later.
There are plenty of references also of those that did not give in. Here are some more (as I said just use the Google)
AG William Barr could face contempt of Congress charges. How often does that happen?
1. Harriet Miers
"Former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who had left office by the time the subpoena was issued, refused to provide documents or testify under a claim of executive privilege, which ensures the confidentiality of advice given the president from his advisers so that they may speak candidly......
The House adopted a pair of resolutions on a vote of 223-32 in February 2008 to refer her for prosecution and to authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas. But the Justice Department declined to prosecute.
A U.S. district court affirmed Congress’s right to information in July 2008 and said Miers didn’t have absolute immunity from testifying, but she could assert executive privilege in response to specific questions. The court made no explicit comment about punishing executive-branch officials for contempt.
The administration appealed the ruling but no decision was reached before the Congress ended in January 2009. At that point, the subpoena and contempt citation each expired.
Lawmakers and the White House reached a settlement in March 2009 for some of the documents requested and for Miers to testify at a closed hearing."
I'd say we're done debating whether or not these things have an expiration date. You are 100% wrong about this.
You cited a court case which I said in my very first post would drag on past the next election, let's talk about those.
I'm going to teach you something else about this process now, which you apparently know nothing about, but started a thread on it anyhow, which is hilarious to me. Even funnier that you are lecturing others on how all this works when you clearly don't actually know yourself. That is called pulling shit from one's ass, FTR.
Anyhow, I underlined a couple of things in the paragraphs above and did so for a reason.
In the event that someone does not comply with these subpoenas and citations, congress CAN authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce, but guess what, lord of cluelessness regarding your own thread? The DOJ can simply decide whether or not to prosecute, so, as would likely happen in this case, did happen in the case of Eric Holder, when Congress moved to exercise that right, the DOJ simply said 'No', cause they could, and refused to prosecute.
Now if this happens Congress can up it another notch they can file a Federal lawsuit, as they did with Holder. And guess what, that case dragged on for over 6 years.
From the article cited above:
2. Eric Holder
"•In November 2011, former Attorney General Eric Holder conceded to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department provided inaccurate information about a gun-running investigation called Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in thousands of guns being smuggled to drug cartels in Mexico.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later subpoenaed documents about the program and Holder refused to fully comply. The House voted 255-67 in June 2012 to find him in contempt and refer him for prosecution. A second resolution approved by a vote of 258-95 authorized a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena.
Then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified the House the same day as the votes that the department wouldn’t prosecute Holder because his response to the subpoena “does not constitute a crime.”
The committee then filed a federal lawsuit in August 2012 to enforce the subpoena, in a case that dragged on more than six years."
Is it becoming clear now why people aren't running around with their hair on fire to 'do something to get these people in now'? If not I'll spell it out.
Congress has limited powers to enforce their own subpoenas and citations, relying on the DOJ to prosecute the civil case if it gets that far after someone ignores a subpoena and/or a citation and the Congress votes to file a civil case. It should be obvious why. Congress is not a court. The Judicial Branch handles that stuff.
So, in cases similar to where we find ourselves now where the DOJ is run by the party being pursued (and was the case with Holder) that short-circuits the civil lawsuit when the DOJ simply refuses to prosecute.
Their next option is a federal case- which will drag on far longer than the results will be politically useful and would likely extend beyond Trump's next term if there is one, so there is no realistic mechanism to force anyone to do a damn thing in a timeframe that is actually useful.
On a simple common-sense level isn't it obvious that if the Dems could compel in a timeframe that made sense they absolutely, 110% would? Of course they would, FFS. If they had realistic options they'd be exercising the hell out of them.
Nice thread through. LOL.
Exactly right. Congress really has no enforcement authority over the Executive Branch. Chaffetz in his books always whines about that. Eric Holder wears his many "Contempt of Congress" medals proudly.
I'm sorry but you're forgetting Susan McDougal.
She was sent to prison for contempt of congress. She didn't refuse a subpoena, she basically took the 5th amendment.
She didn't give in. The republicans forced her to stay in prison until the end of Clinton's presidency when he pardoned her.
Don't waste your time he will blabber on for every no matter what you stick in front of his nose. Congress has enough control to compel witnesses to talk .They haven't had to test that since literally every single person once charged have given in to the charge and went in front of the congress and answered their question. Where do you people get your information, There is no history of their potential actions only because they The person who has been charged has given in to Congress . Lets try it this way show us in contemporary times how anyone has gotten around The charges by congress other then congress just stopping their action and dropping the charges. Congress can play this game exactly the way scum bag can, they can Lock the witness up and they can fine to the full extent of the law and let the individual do what is needed to get out of it. Putting the burden on the accused, Congress is supported in these action will laws and presedence .ignore folks , hot shot here is wasting bandwidth.Bullshit I gave you proof that your smoking wacko weed . one more time Rita Lavelle was prosecuted for contempt of congress , her court session went on for a long time after congress stopped hearings and she was thrown in jail and fined , there is no other contemporary references because all others gave into congress when they were charged with contempt of congress , I'm ignoring this cookoo from now on but if your interested in this simply google Rita Lavelle.Put the shovel down you giant bag of stupid.
The subpeonas and any citations for contempt expire with the session that issued them. The ensuing session can start the process again, but deals with the same limitations.
I've cited a supporting resource and others are freely available for anyone with 30 seconds and the knowledge to simply use google FFS.
Now either take this opportunity to learn something you didnt know and improve yourself or STFU and take your blithering ignorance somewhere else.
What I am saying is binary. It is either right or wrong and it is 100% correct. The subpoenas and contempt citations expire at end of session. Period, end of story.
You are referencing a court case, dimwit, which is neither of those things. But we'll get back to that later.
There are plenty of references also of those that did not give in. Here are some more (as I said just use the Google)
AG William Barr could face contempt of Congress charges. How often does that happen?
1. Harriet Miers
"Former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who had left office by the time the subpoena was issued, refused to provide documents or testify under a claim of executive privilege, which ensures the confidentiality of advice given the president from his advisers so that they may speak candidly......
The House adopted a pair of resolutions on a vote of 223-32 in February 2008 to refer her for prosecution and to authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas. But the Justice Department declined to prosecute.
A U.S. district court affirmed Congress’s right to information in July 2008 and said Miers didn’t have absolute immunity from testifying, but she could assert executive privilege in response to specific questions. The court made no explicit comment about punishing executive-branch officials for contempt.
The administration appealed the ruling but no decision was reached before the Congress ended in January 2009. At that point, the subpoena and contempt citation each expired.
Lawmakers and the White House reached a settlement in March 2009 for some of the documents requested and for Miers to testify at a closed hearing."
I'd say we're done debating whether or not these things have an expiration date. You are 100% wrong about this.
You cited a court case which I said in my very first post would drag on past the next election, let's talk about those.
I'm going to teach you something else about this process now, which you apparently know nothing about, but started a thread on it anyhow, which is hilarious to me. Even funnier that you are lecturing others on how all this works when you clearly don't actually know yourself. That is called pulling shit from one's ass, FTR.
Anyhow, I underlined a couple of things in the paragraphs above and did so for a reason.
In the event that someone does not comply with these subpoenas and citations, congress CAN authorize a civil lawsuit to enforce, but guess what, lord of cluelessness regarding your own thread? The DOJ can simply decide whether or not to prosecute, so, as would likely happen in this case, did happen in the case of Eric Holder, when Congress moved to exercise that right, the DOJ simply said 'No', cause they could, and refused to prosecute.
Now if this happens Congress can up it another notch they can file a Federal lawsuit, as they did with Holder. And guess what, that case dragged on for over 6 years.
From the article cited above:
2. Eric Holder
"•In November 2011, former Attorney General Eric Holder conceded to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department provided inaccurate information about a gun-running investigation called Operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in thousands of guns being smuggled to drug cartels in Mexico.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later subpoenaed documents about the program and Holder refused to fully comply. The House voted 255-67 in June 2012 to find him in contempt and refer him for prosecution. A second resolution approved by a vote of 258-95 authorized a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena.
Then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified the House the same day as the votes that the department wouldn’t prosecute Holder because his response to the subpoena “does not constitute a crime.”
The committee then filed a federal lawsuit in August 2012 to enforce the subpoena, in a case that dragged on more than six years."
Is it becoming clear now why people aren't running around with their hair on fire to 'do something to get these people in now'? If not I'll spell it out.
Congress has limited powers to enforce their own subpoenas and citations, relying on the DOJ to prosecute the civil case if it gets that far after someone ignores a subpoena and/or a citation and the Congress votes to file a civil case. It should be obvious why. Congress is not a court. The Judicial Branch handles that stuff.
So, in cases similar to where we find ourselves now where the DOJ is run by the party being pursued (and was the case with Holder) that short-circuits the civil lawsuit when the DOJ simply refuses to prosecute.
Their next option is a federal case- which will drag on far longer than the results will be politically useful and would likely extend beyond Trump's next term if there is one, so there is no realistic mechanism to force anyone to do a damn thing in a timeframe that is actually useful.
On a simple common-sense level isn't it obvious that if the Dems could compel in a timeframe that made sense they absolutely, 110% would? Of course they would, FFS. If they had realistic options they'd be exercising the hell out of them.
Nice thread through. LOL.
No wonder you'd like people to ignore this thread. LOL.
This is procedure, not opinion or political spin or anything else. It's how it works, I cited things to support what I said, and I think you know I'm right but are too small to simply admit it. Wallowing in ignorance is easier than admitting you're wrong.
Next time before starting a thread, lecturing people on facts when you don't know what they are and calling them liars check your ass first to make sure your head isn't in it. m'kay?
Now run along little partisan worm.....
The red necks here will hang onto their lies as long as they can , literally it is their only power they have, take the abortion routine away from them and they will cry like 2 year olds , take the Democrats are going to take everyone's guns and they will cry so hard that their snot will
be running all the way to the floor. Take away their commie behind every corner routine and there will be multiple mental breakdowns. Take away the lie that they are this countries patriots and 50% of them will be taken to mental institutes and this is just another example built on bullshit. That they need as a party for the ignorant.
Boring!The red necks here will hang onto their lies as long as they can , literally it is their only power they have, take the abortion routine away from them and they will cry like 2 year olds , take the Democrats are going to take everyone's guns and they will cry so hard that their snot will
be running all the way to the floor. Take away their commie behind every corner routine and there will be multiple mental breakdowns. Take away the lie that they are this countries patriots and 50% of them will be taken to mental institutes and this is just another example built on bullshit. That they need as a party for the ignorant.
Cry much? lol.
