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.
