General Discussion

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)

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

Mon Nov 4, 2019, 07:11 PM

Nov 2019

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

92 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Arrest those damn WH officials refusing to obey subpoenas! This is utter nonsense and craziness to [View all] triron Nov 2019 OP

I agree. How do you uphold the law if there's no consequences to obstructing justice. dem4decades Nov 2019 #1

What would be the legal reason for a Govt. employee to be jailed w/out due process? AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #20

If you fail to show up after a court subpoena, are there consequences? dem4decades Nov 2019 #31

Depends....do you fight it....say a higher Court sides with you. AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #37

Exactly! And will never forget what a repuke said Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2019 #69

Schiff has stated that he is not going to go to court to enforce the subpoenas, The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #2

That's sort of like saying, Igel Nov 2019 #3

If I were a WH official (thank god I'm not) I would jump at that deal. triron Nov 2019 #4

He doesn't need to go to court. They have inherent contempt powers. OliverQ Nov 2019 #7

I'm not going to play Monday morning quarterback over Schiff's decision. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #10

Try that...go to a court.....by the time that ran the Court process AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #14

Not sure what you're referring to. OliverQ Nov 2019 #17

And the minute the Sergeant at Arms is ordered to arrest someone, they would get a court injunction StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #22

No they won't. OliverQ Nov 2019 #39

As I told you elsewhere, this just isn't true StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #43

Inherent Contempt is a Congressional power OliverQ Nov 2019 #49

Please stop StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #56

Yes, I do know the law. OliverQ Nov 2019 #58

No, actually you don't StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #62

No, they're not laughable. OliverQ Nov 2019 #64

Like you don't give up under extreme flaming OQ! Bravo Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2019 #89

A petition for habeas corpus will be filed the moment someone is taken into custody onenote Nov 2019 #77

It probably would never even get to that point. StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #81

historically, the response to inherent contempt arrests has been a petition for habeas corpus not onenote Nov 2019 #83

I know that's what's been done historically. But look who we're talking about StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #84

Not sure if I'm correct, dware Nov 2019 #24

No actually it doesn't.......it's Never been adjudicated...it's vuage at best AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #25

No, it's not stupid. OliverQ Nov 2019 #38

If it's not stupid...why hasn't it been done? If it's smart to do, why not yet? AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #42

Remember back when people demanded inherent contempt arrests StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #47

I remember....I laughed at it then as I do now. AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #51

Remember when some people were against impeachment? Funny how they are the same Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2019 #54

That's just wrong jberryhill Nov 2019 #86

I am not making up anything, JB. There was an orchestrated Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2019 #87

Yes, I was here, I'm aware jberryhill Nov 2019 #91

And that is exactly what DU is about to me. Nothing Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2019 #92

It hasn't been done, because it's time consuming OliverQ Nov 2019 #50

Adam Schiff is a Harvard graduated Lawyer....do you know more than him? AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #53

"Courts don't have authority to issue injunctions" StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #45

Actually they do....and will if it's tried...and will again be A SCOTUS case. AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #46

Challenged on what grounds? OliverQ Nov 2019 #52

Nothing in your post is accurate. You really need to stop. StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #57

I'm not misleading people at all. OliverQ Nov 2019 #60

That's delusional....." Has the Supreme Court ever told Congress it's not allowed to conduct.." AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #59

Really? Because Rep. Ted Lieu has also called for the use of Inherent Contempt OliverQ Nov 2019 #61

Ted Lieu chairs which committee with impeachment powers exactly? You must have 1? AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #71

Congress can find someone in contempt ripcord Nov 2019 #48

The US Marshalls Turin_C3PO Nov 2019 #55

The US Marshals are under the control of the DoJ. OliverQ Nov 2019 #63

Well, Turin_C3PO Nov 2019 #65

Not sure what she's referring to. OliverQ Nov 2019 #66

Not really. The marshals are part of DOJ but they report to the federal judges StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #67

Well seeing as McConnell has stacked the judiciary with over 150 OliverQ Nov 2019 #70

AG Holder was voted by the House in contempt..17 House Democrats AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #73

This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Nov 2019 #76

The minute they try to use their inherent contempt powers, they'll be in court StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #18

The Supreme Court has already ruled Congress has the authority to do this. OliverQ Nov 2019 #40

That's not how the law works StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #41

And then what? StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #5

i don't see a down side to this. Kurt V. Nov 2019 #6

Of course there isn't. Even if it goes nowhere at least Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2019 #68

What authority allows those arrests? Can you site it? AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #8

And what is the intended outcome? StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #9

Got me.... I've seen similar posts for a few days...(months actually) AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #13

And even if there WERE a House jail and the House ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #15

That was my larger point...no one is going to be jailed. AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #16

I notice most of those posts are coming from people who trashed Pelosi, said she'd never impeach StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #23

Now that you mention it....I do see some familiarity...damn. AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #27

Or, it could be just a bizarre coincidence StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #29

Yeah...umm..no AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #35

What's the statute of limitations on contempt or obstruction? C_U_L8R Nov 2019 #11

Five years for most federal crimes except for bank fraud (10 years). The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #12

I hope bdamomma Nov 2019 #19

Exactly. Without enforcement, the law may as well not exist. n/t BlancheSplanchnik Nov 2019 #21

We were all fine with Lerner and Holder ignoring Congressional subpoenas and being held in contempt ripcord Nov 2019 #26

17 Democrats voted to hold AG Holder in contempt..255-67 AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #30

One question. Can I, as an average American citizen, ignore or Ferrets are Cool Nov 2019 #28

The answer depends on who issued the subpoena and under what circumstances StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #32

Thank you for the detailed answer. nt Ferrets are Cool Nov 2019 #34

Yes you can. The consequences would depend on how far you.. AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #33

Yes jberryhill Nov 2019 #78

Thank you Ferrets are Cool Nov 2019 #85

Contempt of Congress. democratisphere Nov 2019 #36

AG Holder was voted in Contept...with 17 of us(House Democrats) voting yes... AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #72

All rethuglicons belong in jail. democratisphere Nov 2019 #74

Hoyer: Democrats not using inherent contempt Celerity Nov 2019 #44

I agree. If any of us got a subpoena and just ignored it we'd be hauled into court. Vinca Nov 2019 #75

No, we wouldn't necessarily StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #82

im more for fines. If we arrest them you know damned good n well they will..... samnsara Nov 2019 #79

I totally agree! If they aren't arrested, that sets a precedent. NT raccoon Nov 2019 #80

I agree! trump's accomplices MUST be held accountable to deter this type ecstatic Nov 2019 #88

+1 Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2019 #90