Will they turn the documents over to Jackson for review, or is she going to have to jail them for contempt first?
5 Likes
How do you jail someone for contempt of a federal court order if the FBI, directed by the DOJ, refuses to do so? The FBI has the power to arrest. The DOJ has the power to prosecute. Bill Barr should be impeached.
The time for a MASSIVE march on DC may come much sooner than most think.
13 Likes
There sure is A LOT of nothing wrong, isnât there?
10 Likes
Good post, c. Please write the mainstream media outlets of your choice with the above, if they know people are paying attention, theyâll do better.
2 Likes
Chuckie Todd will be all over this tomorrow like stink on shit.
2 Likes
Some people think Chuckie Todd is stink on shit.
5 Likes
I think they finally got a new OMB head in there but donât remember his name or when, just remember Rachel Maddow mentioning it.
1 Like
âthe Times filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in late November for emails exchanged between Robert Blair, a senior adviser to acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and Mike Duffey, the OMB official in charge of overseeing national security money.â
Curious: Isnât this something Congress can do? And if so, why didnât they do it? This does not seem like something that should entirely be left up to a news company.
3 Likes
Thanks, we should all heed your advice.
2 Likes
The House did ask for these kinds of documents, and I believe they subpoenaed both Blair and Duffey. The fact that the administration refused the subpoena, or any information gathering at all, is the basis of the second article of impeachment against Trump.
4 Likes
"NYT Congress Plans To Challenge WH For Withholding 20 Emails On Ukraine Aid Freeze"
âThe Trump administrationâs decision to withhold the emails comes after the Times Congress filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in late November for emails exchanged betweenâŚâ
I was wondering why Congress didnât do what the NYT did. Perhaps I am missing something.
2 Likes
I am not certain of this given possible statutes written subsequent to 1934, but I believe that the House has the authority to send their Sergeant At Arms over to arrest anyone charged by the House with Inherent Contempt, and I believe that the Capitol Police will assist if directed to do so. Then there is the question of where the arrested individual is held. Perhaps in a broom closet deep in the bowels of the Capitol buildingâŚ
It has been a long time since anyone has been arrested based on Inherent Contempt.
From Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Inherent contempt
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation).[11]
Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its âinherent contemptâ authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by Vice President John Nance Garner, in his capacity as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who was charged with allowing clients to remove or rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.[12]
MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken .[13][14]
I think Nancy Pelosi has more than enough balls and ovaries to pull this off if she believes it would be productive. I also believe she knows better than I if it would be worth it. It would most definitely be a declaration of âwarâ upon certain elements of the current bungling administration and it would set one hell of a precedent.
6 Likes
Shards of Ourselves
Everyday a man of no morals flings the disgusting oozings of his unfettered id upon the souls of every American.
We all consume these tasteless emanations, pleading for reins to moderate his bucking ineptitude. MAGAts lick it, like it, and license the totality of the reckless scumbag, forcing all Americans - and the rest of the planet - to choke and gasp and heave from the whipped-up rot of the careless egg thrower.
He seems determined to destroy if only to dominate a news cycle.
I used to joke and say, âIf we surviveâŚâ but Iâm not light-hearted about it anymore.
He has shattered my sense of America, my sense of justice and my sense of humor and replaced them with nonsense.
His name is Trump and this is how heâs killing us.
3 Likes
inhibit the frank and candid exchange of views
Discussions by government officials about committing crimes shouldnât be protected.
4 Likes
"inhibit the frank and candid exchange of views that is necessary for effective government decision-making.â
One problem with this cop outâŚwe have seen little evidence of effective decision making and plenty of key stone cops unilateral mind numbing action from the idiotic Prez.