Arrest those damn WH officials refusing to obey subpoenas! This is utter nonsense and craziness to

[triron]

let this go without consequence. I know, some DUers will protest. Whatever.

[dem4decades]

1. I agree. How do you uphold the law if there's no consequences to obstructing justice.

It's the Mueller probe all over again.

[AncientGeezer]

20. What would be the legal reason for a Govt. employee to be jailed w/out due process?

AG Holder was voted in Contempt, 255-67 with 17 of us on the Yea side...because of Fast and Furious.......shall we do this every time an election is lost?

[dem4decades]

31. If you fail to show up after a court subpoena, are there consequences?

[AncientGeezer]

37. Depends....do you fight it....say a higher Court sides with you.

Then no..if you lose.. you appeal to a higher court... right?
If you ultimately lose, say at SCOTUS.... well....you have to appear....and immediately invoke your 5th A right...game over. Can't be punished for using the 5th

[Laura PourMeADrink]

69. Exactly! And will never forget what a repuke said

"Democrats hate trump. And if there was anything there they would have impeached."

People are so hungry for people to do what is right.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Schiff has stated that he is not going to go to court to enforce the subpoenas,

but instead will include this additional stonewalling as another instance of obstruction of justice to add to the articles of impeachment.

[Igel]

3. That's sort of like saying,

"If you defend yourself and challenge our authority, defendant, we'll add 'obstruction' to the charges." It's swagger, and not even hat.

Note that "defying" (also known as "questioning&quot subpoenas is not a new thing. Eric Holder was subpoenaed, told not to comply, and the court case involving his non-compliance was only settled after (D) took charge of the House and decided that enforcing House authority just wasn't worth it.

Back then, many celebrated when the executive defied the House. It's a question of whose ox is being gored.

[triron]

4. If I were a WH official (thank god I'm not) I would jump at that deal.

[OliverQ]

7. He doesn't need to go to court. They have inherent contempt powers.

Start using them.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. I'm not going to play Monday morning quarterback over Schiff's decision.

He's in the middle of it while I'm just an observer who doesn't know what's going on that isn't in the news.

[AncientGeezer]

14. Try that...go to a court.....by the time that ran the Court process

One of President Obama's Grand kids will have served her 2nd term as POTUS

[OliverQ]

17. Not sure what you're referring to.

Inherent contempt is a Congressional power that allows the Sergeant at Arms to arrest people who don't comply with Congress and put them in jail.

[StarfishSaver]

22. And the minute the Sergeant at Arms is ordered to arrest someone, they would get a court injunction

No one will get arrested.

Instead, there'll be just one more case slowly winding its way through the courts and, in the meantime, the House won't get one piece of evidence out of it that it needs to impeach Trump.

And isn't the point of arresting them to get them to testify so they'll provide information that will help the House impeach Trump?

You know what the House is doing now? They're in the process of impeaching Trump.

[OliverQ]

39. No they won't.

The Supreme Court has already ruled Inherent contempt is a lawful Constitutional authority that the Judiciary can't stop.

[StarfishSaver]

43. As I told you elsewhere, this just isn't true

The court does indeed have the authority to stop it.

[OliverQ]

49. Inherent Contempt is a Congressional power

The court is not going to issue an injunction on that, just like the Supreme Court will never tell Congress it is not allowed to Impeach someone or Declare War.

And yes, it's absolutely true that the Supreme Court has already said Congress has this power.

[StarfishSaver]

56. Please stop

You don't know the law and you're just spreading misinformation.

[OliverQ]

58. Yes, I do know the law.

And no, I'm not spreading misinformation. I'm disagreeing with your legal interpretation. How about you stop?

[StarfishSaver]

62. No, actually you don't

You're just throwing around legal terms.

But anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the law knows your assertions are just laughable.

[OliverQ]

64. No, they're not laughable.

Your arguments are just your opinion. They're not tested. The only case law we have on the issue supports the conclusion that Congress has the Inherent Contempt power and the courts would not intervene.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

89. Like you don't give up under extreme flaming OQ! Bravo

[onenote]

77. A petition for habeas corpus will be filed the moment someone is taken into custody

The issue won't be the validity of Congress' inherent contempt authority in general. The issue will be the validity of its exercise in a particular case. In other words, the issue will be the validity of the subpoena -- and the process will end up being no different than if the committee went to court to enforce the subpoena, and will take at least as long.

[StarfishSaver]

81. It probably would never even get to that point.

As soon as the warrant is issued, the subject would get an injunction.

But, you're right. If they did manage to arrest someone, they'd be released immediately.

[onenote]

83. historically, the response to inherent contempt arrests has been a petition for habeas corpus not

an injunction.

[StarfishSaver]

84. I know that's what's been done historically. But look who we're talking about

No one in this administration is going to wait to be arrested before going to court. If they even think inherent contempt is about to be invoked, their lawyer will be camped out in the clerk's office to file the request for injunction the second the warrant is issued.

The only way they would allow themselves to be taken into custody is if they decide they want the public spectacle, a la Roger Stone, of being seen being hauled off to jail, only to be released by a judge immediately afterward. And then everyone would be back to square one with no testimony, no documents, no closer to impeachment, just a circus the Democrats created and will be blamed for, that makes them look as ridiculous as the pizza-in-the-SCIF Republicans looked, and that could very likely completely scuttle any possibility of a successful impeachment. That would not do the Democrats or the process any good at all.

[dware]

24. Not sure if I'm correct,

but the Sgt. at Arms authority extends to only the Capitol grounds, he has no authority to arrest anyone outside of the Capitol.

[AncientGeezer]

25. No actually it doesn't.......it's Never been adjudicated...it's vuage at best

The Sgt.of Arms is not going to arrest anyone...
IF..(huge IF) IC was was used against anyone, the DC Circ Court would stay it in about 9 seconds...as they should.

Do you remember when AG Holder was voted in contempt....because of Fast and Furious....overwhelming vote, 255-67...17 of us voting with the R's...

Speaker Pelosi is NOT going to be stupid...Chairman Schiff is not going to be stupid.......trying IC..is stupid......not EVER going to happen.

[OliverQ]

38. No, it's not stupid.

Allowing the White House to continue to defy subpoenas is what's stupid.

The courts don't have authority to issue an injunction. The Supreme Court has already ruled Inherent Contempt is a lawful Constitutional authority.

[AncientGeezer]

42. If it's not stupid...why hasn't it been done? If it's smart to do, why not yet?

You know why...every court would kill it. Speaker Pelosi knows it...Chr. Schiff knows it.....
A person can fight a subpoena....and should if they think it's wrong.
I would..in a nano second and if I was eventually forced to appear...invoke the 5th..I'm here...I'm not saying squat and you can't make me.

Now what do you do....jail someone for that....want us to lose elections for the next 10....proceed

[StarfishSaver]

47. Remember back when people demanded inherent contempt arrests

because they claimed that was the only way to get the information needed to impeach?

But now that the House is impeaching its hiney off, they're still screaming for inherent contempt anyway?

I'm starting to think some of these people aren't really all that interested in impeaching anyone but are really just trying to stir up some shish.

[AncientGeezer]

51. I remember....I laughed at it then as I do now.

Spkr Pelosi isn't an idiot, Rep Schiff isn't an idiot..a PoliSi degree from Stanford and his JD from Harvard......but the "jail them" crowd knows so much more....than Schiff....
I'm going to shut up because the alert kids will swarm if I say more.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

54. Remember when some people were against impeachment? Funny how they are the same

people who are against holding anyone accountable now! instead of looking for ways to make something happen, they look for every reason for it not to happen. Rather be in the other group any day of the year.

[jberryhill]

86. That's just wrong

Go back and look at what I've said about impeachment in the past, for example. It's LONG PAST TIME for impeachment to have begun, as far as I'm concerned.

You are totally missing the boat on "against holding anyone accountable now".

People are going to be held accountable, but not over subpoena fight.

Who is "against holding anyone accountable"? Name one person here who holds that position.

There's no need to make stuff up about other people, merely so you can direct misplaced anger at them.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

87. I am not making up anything, JB. There was an orchestrated

effort here to squelch any talk of Impeachment before it actually started. And now it's squelching talk regarding punishing witnesses who don't show up. I am not accusing you of being in this group at all. I know it as a fact because I, and others who have been here for a very long time lived through it every day. And then got falsely accused of bashing Pelosi personally. Instead of analyzing the pros and cons of doing X or Y. Always with the goal of getting trump.

Obviously no one is going to come out directly and say "I don't want to hold anyone accountable.". All anyone has to go on is actions and the talk that this won't do any good or this won't work. Not, let's think outside the box...how can we figure out a way to hold people accountable.

[jberryhill]

91. Yes, I was here, I'm aware

I'm simply saying that (a) I was not among those doing that, but (b) I am among those who would prefer that the House proceed with Impeachment and not be derailed by various theatrics in which the administration is engaged to do just that.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

92. And that is exactly what DU is about to me. Nothing

personal. Not about each other or other Dems. It's about ideas and opinions. It's about how we take the best courses of action. And hopefully more of what we can do and not a million excuses why we can not.

[OliverQ]

50. It hasn't been done, because it's time consuming

and they probably figure it's not worth the effort considering how many people are in contempt of Congress. They think it's easier just to add it all to articles of impeachment.

If you were to defy a Congressional subpoena, you'd be going to jail. But it would done by the DoJ, not Congress. Unfortunately, the DoJ now serves only as Trump's defense team, so they won't arrest White House staff for contempt like they're supposed to.

[AncientGeezer]

53. Adam Schiff is a Harvard graduated Lawyer....do you know more than him?

You are going to tell me...or anyone else here... you know how the Law works more than Chr. Schiff?
That's your play? That's the rack you're hanging your hat on?

Just stop.....really.... just stop.
If your dream is an option... a viable option....Why hasn't Rep.Schiff pulled that trigger?
I'll tell you why......he knows better.

[StarfishSaver]

45. "Courts don't have authority to issue injunctions"

Yes, they do.

[AncientGeezer]

46. Actually they do....and will if it's tried...and will again be A SCOTUS case.

Roe-v-Wade can be challenged...and reversed....I doubt it will but it's possible.
Heller is a lawful Constitutional "authority"...what ever that means....are you saying it can't be challenged?

[OliverQ]

52. Challenged on what grounds?

Even if it was challenged, it would be expedited immediately to the Supreme Court as it's a Separation of Powers issue, and they'd again say Congress has that authority and it's not their job to stop it.

Has the Supreme Court ever told Congress it's not allowed to conduct Impeachment or Declare War?

[StarfishSaver]

57. Nothing in your post is accurate. You really need to stop.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're just confusing and misleading people who don't know the law and people who do know the law see right through your gobbledegook.

What are you trying to accomplish?

[OliverQ]

60. I'm not misleading people at all.

Your interpretation isn't based on any legal opinion. You're claiming a Sergeant at Arms has no authority to arrest people outside Congress, when there is absolutely no basis to believe that. You're arguing that the courts can issue an injunction and stop Congress from conducting their Constitutional authority. There is no evidence of that, and the Supreme Court has already ruled Congress can arrest people without input from the courts.

[AncientGeezer]

59. That's delusional....." Has the Supreme Court ever told Congress it's not allowed to conduct.."

What the HELL has the House ability to impeach have to do with a Court process?
"it would be expedited immediately to the Supreme Court"...bullshit.
You have no way to know that...nor do I.

I know what you want.....it's not going to happen. Chairman Schiff knows way more about the Law than you do...or ever will

[OliverQ]

61. Really? Because Rep. Ted Lieu has also called for the use of Inherent Contempt

and he's a former prosecutor just like Schiff.

Did it ever occur to you they're not doing it, because it takes too much time, and not because they can't?

[AncientGeezer]

71. Ted Lieu chairs which committee with impeachment powers exactly? You must have 1?

"Did it ever occur to you they're not doing it, because it takes too much time, and not because they can't? ".......
Never occurred to me..because we CAN try...and it'll take forever.... and the final decision will come well after dumpster gets ass kicked next November.

As a party...we have better stuff to spend our money and political capital on.
Chairman Schiff knows way more than you do about what his options are...Ted Is a bit of a bomb thrower..like Beto....ends up in smoke.

Speaker Pelosi and Chr. Shiff have this covered. Leave it to the adults.

[ripcord]

48. Congress can find someone in contempt

The actual prosecution of the charges lies with the US Attorney for DC who isn't going to piss Barr off.

[Turin_C3PO]

55. The US Marshalls

can enforce a federal court order and the DOJ couldn’t do anything about it.

[OliverQ]

63. The US Marshals are under the control of the DoJ.

[Turin_C3PO]

65. Well,

I trust Starfish Saver’s expertise on this matter since she’s been right about a whole host of things. She said the US Marshalls can be deputized to enforce a federal court order and the DOJ couldn’t do shit about it.

[OliverQ]

66. Not sure what she's referring to.

The Director of the US Marshals can deputize other members of the DoJ, state or local law enforcement, private security for courtrooms, or other officials as designated by the Attorney General.

But that would still fall under the purview of the DoJ and the Attorney General. So since she thinks she knows everything, perhaps she can elaborate on how a US Marshall can completely bypass the authority of the DoJ and Attorney General.

[StarfishSaver]

67. Not really. The marshals are part of DOJ but they report to the federal judges

If a federal judge orders a marshal to arrest someone, they are not going to disobey that order, even if the Attorney General tells them to, which itself would be an unlawful order.

And even if a marshal decided to "go rogue" and obey the AG's unlawful order, it wouldn't be long before the judge found a marshal - probably an army of them - who would be more than happy to follow the judge's lawful order to arrest and jail the original defier AND the marshal who disobeyed the judge AND the Attorney General.

The federal judges are NOT to be trifled with and, when it comes to this, they have more power than the Attorney General. He'd be crazy to try them.

[OliverQ]

70. Well seeing as McConnell has stacked the judiciary with over 150

completely partisan hacks, some of whom were even deemed unqualified by the ABA, I'm not going to hold my breath that the Judiciary and Marshals service will be protecting the country for much longer.

[AncientGeezer]

73. AG Holder was voted by the House in contempt..17 House Democrats

voted for contempt....should he be in jail?

[StarfishSaver]

18. The minute they try to use their inherent contempt powers, they'll be in court

The idea that this can be done without any court involvement is just not based in reality. The minute the arrest is ordered or a fine is imposed, the subject would go straight to court to get an injunction, which a court should surely grant - and then we'd be right where we are with all of the other cases in which Trump and his minions have tied up processes in court.

[OliverQ]

40. The Supreme Court has already ruled Congress has the authority to do this.

The courts have no right to issue an injunction. That's a violation of the Separation of Powers.

[StarfishSaver]

41. That's not how the law works

Having the power to do something doesn't mean they can do it whenever they want and no injunction can ever be issued.

That's how Trump approaches the presidency ("I have the power to do X and therefore no one can stop me ever from doing it exactly when and how and to whom I choose&quot but that's not how the law works.

Congress has a right to subpoena documents, but that doesn't mean a court can't block a subpoena.

[StarfishSaver]

5. And then what?

[Kurt V.]

6. i don't see a down side to this.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

68. Of course there isn't. Even if it goes nowhere at least

We are standing tall for what is right. Wonder why no one paying attention...?

[AncientGeezer]

8. What authority allows those arrests? Can you site it?

What happens when they try that on us?

[StarfishSaver]

9. And what is the intended outcome?

[AncientGeezer]

13. Got me.... I've seen similar posts for a few days...(months actually)

I don't get what the posters think will happen....won't be arrest.
Maybe people think there is still a House jail....ready for the dirtbags.

[StarfishSaver]

15. And even if there WERE a House jail and the House ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest

anyone, the subject would get a restraining order within minutes of the order being issued ... And then we'd have ANOTHER case to litigate.

In the meantime, we'd still not get their testimony or documents.

Yes, that would be great.

[AncientGeezer]

16. That was my larger point...no one is going to be jailed.

I keep asking for the authority..never an answer.
There shouldn't be one...but the posts keep coming....'jail them'....makes my head hurt.

[StarfishSaver]

23. I notice most of those posts are coming from people who trashed Pelosi, said she'd never impeach

accused the Democrats of being wimps, etc. Pelosi made fools of them, but they still can't let it go. So now they're hanging on to the "They need to use inherent contempt" because what else are they going to say?

[AncientGeezer]

27. Now that you mention it....I do see some familiarity...damn.

[StarfishSaver]

29. Or, it could be just a bizarre coincidence

[AncientGeezer]

35. Yeah...umm..no

[C_U_L8R]

11. What's the statute of limitations on contempt or obstruction?

These scofflaws are making poor choices.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Five years for most federal crimes except for bank fraud (10 years).

[bdamomma]

19. I hope

they throw the gavel at them.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

21. Exactly. Without enforcement, the law may as well not exist. n/t

[ripcord]

26. We were all fine with Lerner and Holder ignoring Congressional subpoenas and being held in contempt

Now that is going to make things much harder to deal with this situation.

[AncientGeezer]

30. 17 Democrats voted to hold AG Holder in contempt..255-67

Yeah that won't be used against us......said no one ever

[Ferrets are Cool]

28. One question. Can I, as an average American citizen, ignore or

refuse to obey a subpoena? And, if I do, what are the consequences?

[StarfishSaver]

32. The answer depends on who issued the subpoena and under what circumstances

If it's from a court, the court has much sharper enforcement tools. If it's from Congress and you ignore it, you can be held in contempt and prosecuted and sent to jail - IF the Department of Justice, which normally enforces Congressional subpoenas, cooperates. If not, you pretty much get away with it unless Congress goes to court directly and asks the court to enforce it. But until the court rules and the appeals are exhausted, there are few consequences, other than spending a lot of money and time on lawyers.

[Ferrets are Cool]

34. Thank you for the detailed answer. nt

[AncientGeezer]

33. Yes you can. The consequences would depend on how far you..

..run it up the court process.
You could win and have no consequences....or lose and have to appear.

[jberryhill]

78. Yes

Last edited Tue Nov 5, 2019, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)

I advised a client not to respond to one just last month.

The client had valid reasons to refusing to respond to it, and those reasons were made clear.

It all depends on WHY you are refusing to obey it. But the party which issued the subpoena is NOT the party which is empowered to determine whether your reasons for refusing are valid or not.

But there are a number of standard objections to a subpoena. I know one attorney who routinely advises his clients to refuse simply on rote objections - vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, etc.. At that point in litigating, you are into a subpoena fight if that's where you want to spend your time. And that decision depends on what evidence you already have.

[Ferrets are Cool]

85. Thank you

[democratisphere]

36. Contempt of Congress.

In the slammer they all go! THEN we'll see who starts talking.

[AncientGeezer]

72. AG Holder was voted in Contept...with 17 of us(House Democrats) voting yes...

Really want to do this? Should AG Holder be in jail?

[democratisphere]

74. All rethuglicons belong in jail.

THEY are obstructing everything in Congress. We have become an insane country to let this day in and day out BS occur.

[Celerity]

44. Hoyer: Democrats not using inherent contempt

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/hoyer-democrats-not-using-inherent-contempt-hope-to-conclude-impeachment-inquiry-this-year

[Vinca]

75. I agree. If any of us got a subpoena and just ignored it we'd be hauled into court.

[StarfishSaver]

82. No, we wouldn't necessarily

See JBerryhill's comment above for examples of this.

[samnsara]

79. im more for fines. If we arrest them you know damned good n well they will.....

...try to drag Hillary off in handcuffs for something they made up in their wee pea brains.

[raccoon]

80. I totally agree! If they aren't arrested, that sets a precedent. NT

[ecstatic]

88. I agree! trump's accomplices MUST be held accountable to deter this type

of behavior in the future.

The idea of simply adding their obstruction to trump's impeachment articles doesn't address the (potentially) criminal acts committed by them.

Refusing to appear to the hearing is already criminal obstruction, but if the no-show officials performed additional illegal acts to further trump's criminal extortion scheme, I want them to face the same consequences that any of us would have to face had we done something similar.

They should not be allowed to walk off into the sunset as if nothing happened. I will be furious if they're not held accountable!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

90. +1