A Mt. Vesuvius of venality.
4 Likes
I dont think that is how it works. Congress has the authority to subpoena, if that is ignored they are in contempt if Congress declares it so. What you suggest leaves Congress with no authority.
4 Likes
I agree with you - Congress issued a subpoena. It was ignored. Thereâs no requirement that they go to the 3d branch before they act - that would be a violation of the Separation of Powers.
3 Likes
A Krakatoa of Corruption.
1 Like
A Campi Flegrei of Felonies.
2 Likes
Yea I am not sure but I would think that after being declared in contempt Congress would take the individual to court to enforce the order by using the civil authorities. That should be a slam dunk deal, I would think.
1 Like
A Stromboli of Subversion
3 Likes
We are going to have to now be very much aware that feelings of progress, like everything in Trumpâs USA, can be commodified.
Last nightâs Flynn memos talked about by Rachel and Lawrence mentioned highly improper actions by Team Trump and also hinted at other things in the near future.
I would have thought that this would have gotten more positive play today, in the articles and among posters. Instead I see an abundance of tamping down anything with a hint of hopeâŚ
I do not mind squelching of actual data in plain view, if warrantedâŚbut I cannot see anything normal about squelching things in the near future
1 Like
because it add nothing to the court case demanding the tax returns, and IMHO the easier it is for the public to understand what is going on, the better. That means the fewer complications, the better.
An Etna of Evil
2 Likes
Unfortunately this process (known as statutory contempt) requires a referral by Congress to the DC Federal district prosecutor â in other words, a referral to the DoJ. And the DoJ does not have to respond to that referralâŚ
There is also civil contempt, in which House can ask a judge to compel compliance with a subpoena. This is what happened with âOversight v Holderâ â and it took three years for any documents to be released.
That being said, Neal has another option⌠a writ of mandamus. This is a court order demanding that a public official do their job as defined under the law. In this instance, it should be an open and shut case, because the law is unequivocal that Mnuchin âshallâ provide tax returns.
5 Likes
A Krakatoa of Korruption
1 Like
I have âkept my powder dryâ on raining hellfire on âwimpyâ democrats but that is the wishiest washiest mealiest mouthiest pile of horseshit yet. Neal. For crying out loud. Can you ask for a whipping any more ardently? Pull down your pants a little? You have every right, and every green light to unload a government issued-sized can of whupass on those fuckosâŚand you say âI donât know what good it will doâ?
Yes-do both! Nancy P. is âbundlingâ every contempt charge and they will be voted on as one big gob oâcontempt. I think thatâs the technical term 
2 Likes
Thanks for that but I think you are mistaken about the Federal District of DC being part of the DoJ. This District is Under Congress.
The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is the United States Attorney responsible for representing the federal government in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Unlike the states, District of Columbia is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress. By statute, the U.S. Attorney is responsible for prosecuting both federal crimes and all serious crimes committed by adults in the District of Columbia. Therefore, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia serves as both the federal prosecutor (as in the other 92 U.S. Attorneysâ offices) and as the local district attorney. The Attorney General of the District of Columbia, who is elected by the people of the District, handles local civil litigation and minor infractions, comparable with a City Attorney.
The current U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is Jessie K. Liu, who was nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate in September 2017.[1] Liu replaced Acting U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips.[2]
1 Like
It is the Everest of Evil. There I said it. Someone had to.
1 Like
Thatâs what I meant to say â thanks for the correction/clarification.
However, Jessie K Liu answers to Barr, just as all US Attorneys do.
All federal prosecutors, including all 90-plus U.S. attorneys, work for Barr, and would be under no obligation to pursue a contempt charge.
Indeed, during the Bush II years, Congress subpoenaed Harriet Miers who had worked in the White House. Bush invoked executive privilege. Congress held Miers in contempt for not complying with the subpoena - and referred the case to the DC US Attorney. The US attorney declined to prosecute because of executive privilege. Congress sued. and won in District court â Bush appealed. Then Obama was elected. At that point, a settlement was negotiated, and Miers testified in March 2009.
The whole thing took just under two years â and thatâs without a hearing on the appeals case.
Yes that is correct but if she chose to, Barr could not stop her. It is also my understanding they could take it to the local prosecuter, who is in the same office.
The court would have to agree to take the case, this would be the case no matter what court they went to, from my understanding.
But then I am no lawyer so I wont be practicing law anytime soon. Just trying to figure all this stuff out
If it is as you say why isnt Barr stopping all the Trump investigations in the SDNY and other Districts?
do you have a cite for that â Iâd love it if its true!
I donât know. My guess is that its because SDNY, etc have not issued any subpoenas of that that Trump could say âexecutive privilegeâ on .
That being said, we donât know that he hasnât shut down those investigations. We do know that he thinks investigations should not be done if there is no possibility of an indictment â and he thinks that Trump is not indictable while in office. My guess is IF investigations are continuing, they are âtargetedâ at others, but not Trump himself, and that no indictment of Trump will be permitted by SDNY.