The process has to be started now to get the people who won't come in on the congressional hearing

[Billy_Bob]

Afraid we do have a crime

Bribery, Malfeasance, abuse of office

And your proof of said crimes?

Now if we are talking Biden, we have plenty of evidence to support these crimes..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Excellent point. Yes, the process should be started now. That way, when the desperate white house loses the court decision that will render the congressional subpoenas valid and forceful, the committees can issue swift deadlines to the fugitives.

 

[MAGAman]

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.

You probably didn't know the Executive Branch is coequal to the Legislative Branch, did you?

In simpler terms... Do you think Trump could subpoena Nancy Pelosi and Adam Shiffft for shits and giggles?

 

[kyzr]

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.

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.

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.

LOL, Barr asked Nancy if she brought her handcuffs
Opinion | ‘Did You Bring Your Handcuffs?’

If the House sends their sheriff out to arrest a member of the Executive he would be sent back with his handcuffs shoved up his you know where.

Its not worth the effort to charge anyone with contempt since the next election would be over before before any action.
There would be appeal after appeal after appeal. Nothing ever comes of contempt charges, just ask Eric Holder.
Holder Held in Contempt of Congress, Which Means Almost Nothing

 

[jbander]

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.

You probably didn't know the Executive Branch is coequal to the Legislative Branch, did you?

In simpler terms... Do you think Trump could subpoena Nancy Pelosi and Adam Shiffft for shits and giggles?

Anyone have a clue on this one.

 

[jbander]

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.

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.

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.

LOL, Barr asked Nancy if she brought her handcuffs
Opinion | ‘Did You Bring Your Handcuffs?’

If the House sends their sheriff out to arrest a member of the Executive he would be sent back with his handcuffs shoved up his you know where.

Its not worth the effort to charge anyone with contempt since the next election would be over before before any action.
There would be appeal after appeal after appeal. Nothing ever comes of contempt charges, just ask Eric Holder.
Holder Held in Contempt of Congress, Which Means Almost Nothing

Well buddy , you don't know what your talking about , This has been played out over and over through history, 90% of the time when given Contempt of congress , they wimp out, and give into the contemp charges and sits down for the hearing. , There has been a couple of cases in near history where they didn't give in and they went to jail and had large fines. In all cases. There is three things that can happen ,they can weeny out which is the vast majority a few congress has not followed through because they got what they want and everyone that didn't give in went to jail and were fined. Kind of looks like you have no fricken clue doesn't it.

 

[jbander]

What has to be done is file the contempt of congress but the real point is you have have to follow through with the charges no matter how long it takes , these people belong in jail for pissing on our flag and spitting on our constitutions. File the charges.

 

[jbander]

THIS IS FOR ALL THE EXPERTS ON HERE FROM THE RIGHT

 

[Fueri]

and here's one for you 'expert'. Holder never was brought to account, gave up some stuff in a 'settlement', but NEVER complied. I linked to a couple of others also, but I guess you simply see what you'd like to. No real surprise there.

I wonder, did Eric 'piss on our flag and spit on our constitution' too as far as you're concerned, or is that umbrage reserved for others on the other side of the party divide? hmmm?

Just kidding, that was a completely rhetorical question. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows the answer already...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Holder never was brought to account, gave up some stuff in a 'settlement', but NEVER complied.

So what? Gonna cry about it?

 

[Fueri]

Holder never was brought to account, gave up some stuff in a 'settlement', but NEVER complied.

So what? Gonna cry about it?

I know thats the best you can do, so nice job buckaroo.

:: pats FFI's empty head::

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Holder never was brought to account, gave up some stuff in a 'settlement', but NEVER complied.

So what? Gonna cry about it?

I know thats the best you can do, so nice job buckaroo.

:: pats FFI's empty head::

Thats the appropriate response to your desperate whataboutism. Garbage in, garbage out. If you want more intellectual, nuanced responses, try making posts that are above the mental ability of a fourth grader.

 

[BlindBoo]

Eric Holder wears his many "Contempt of Congress" medals proudly.

You mean the 1 time. After the Issa Committee requested and received reams of unrelated documents and took hours of Holder's personal testimony, holder finally refuse a batch. Say how'd the courts rule on that case?

 

[Fueri]

Holder never was brought to account, gave up some stuff in a 'settlement', but NEVER complied.

So what? Gonna cry about it?

I know thats the best you can do, so nice job buckaroo.

:: pats FFI's empty head::

Thats the appropriate response to your desperate whataboutism. Garbage in, garbage out. If you want more intellectual, nuanced responses, try making posts that are above the mental ability of a fourth grader.

BS. It's your usual juvenile trolling.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Holder never was brought to account, gave up some stuff in a 'settlement', but NEVER complied.

So what? Gonna cry about it?

I know thats the best you can do, so nice job buckaroo.

:: pats FFI's empty head::

Thats the appropriate response to your desperate whataboutism. Garbage in, garbage out. If you want more intellectual, nuanced responses, try making posts that are above the mental ability of a fourth grader.

BS. It's your usual juvenile trolling.

In response to your usual, juvenile whataboutism. Garbage in,garbage out.

 

[Fueri]

Holder never was brought to account, gave up some stuff in a 'settlement', but NEVER complied.

So what? Gonna cry about it?

I know thats the best you can do, so nice job buckaroo.

:: pats FFI's empty head::

Thats the appropriate response to your desperate whataboutism. Garbage in, garbage out. If you want more intellectual, nuanced responses, try making posts that are above the mental ability of a fourth grader.

BS. It's your usual juvenile trolling.

In response to your usual, juvenile whataboutism. Garbage in,garbage out.

Sure, sure. Typical MO.

Here's you.

1. Throw a logical fallacy.
2. Declare victory.

Here's a nickel, go buy yourself some candy little boy.....

 

[kyzr]

Eric Holder wears his many "Contempt of Congress" medals proudly.

You mean the 1 time. After the Issa Committee requested and received reams of unrelated documents and took hours of Holder's personal testimony, holder finally refuse a batch. Say how'd the courts rule on that case?

Judge declines to hold Holder in contempt
"The Oversight Committee is pleased that the Judge in the case has rejected the Department's request to continue illegally withholding documents and its attempt to unnecessarily prolong the proceeding. This court ruling affirms that Attorney General Holder broke the law in withholding subpoenaed documents, which led the House of Representatives to vote him in criminal contempt," said the spokesperson.

Holder broke the law but was given a pass on contempt.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So what? Gonna cry about it?

I know thats the best you can do, so nice job buckaroo.

:: pats FFI's empty head::

Thats the appropriate response to your desperate whataboutism. Garbage in, garbage out. If you want more intellectual, nuanced responses, try making posts that are above the mental ability of a fourth grader.

BS. It's your usual juvenile trolling.

In response to your usual, juvenile whataboutism. Garbage in,garbage out.

Sure, sure. Typical MO.

Here's you.

1. Throw a logical fallacy.
2. Declare victory.

Here's a nickel, go buy yourself some candy little boy.....

You shouldn't use words you don't understand.

Describe my fallacy and what type of fallacy it was.

See you in...never.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Holder broke the law b

So you are saying trump and his officials are breaking the law.

 

[Fueri]

I know thats the best you can do, so nice job buckaroo.

:: pats FFI's empty head::

Thats the appropriate response to your desperate whataboutism. Garbage in, garbage out. If you want more intellectual, nuanced responses, try making posts that are above the mental ability of a fourth grader.

BS. It's your usual juvenile trolling.

In response to your usual, juvenile whataboutism. Garbage in,garbage out.

Sure, sure. Typical MO.

Here's you.

1. Throw a logical fallacy.
2. Declare victory.

Here's a nickel, go buy yourself some candy little boy.....

You shouldn't use words you don't understand.

Describe my fallacy and what type of fallacy it was.

See you in...never.

Sure, sure little fella. I'll do exactly as you ask.

I don't play your games. Never have never will....