HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Sez here Barr can block a...

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:20 PM

Sez here Barr can block any Contempt of Congress citations.


Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia;
according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.
However, while the law places the duty on the U.S. Attorney to impanel a grand jury for action, some proponents of the unitary executive theory argue that the Congress cannot properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action against the Executive Branch, asserting that the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports only to the President and that compelling the U.S. Attorney amounts to compelling the President himself.
They argue that to allow Congress to force the President to take action against a subordinate following his directives would be a violation of the separation of powers and infringe on the power of the Executive branch. The legal basis for this position, they contend, can be found in Federalist 49, in which James Madison wrote “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” This approach to government is commonly known as "departmentalism” or “coordinate construction”


Others argue that Article II of the Constitution requires the President to execute the law, such law being what the lawmaker (e.g. Congress, in the case of statutory contempt) says it is (per Article I).
The Executive Branch cannot either define the meaning of the law (such powers of legislation being reserved to Congress) or interpret the law (such powers being reserved to the several Federal Courts). They argue that any attempt by the Executive to define or interpret the law would be a violation of the separation of powers; the Executive may only—and is obligated to—execute the law consistent with its definition and interpretation; and if the law specifies a duty on one of the President's subordinates, then the President must "take care" to see that the duty specified in the law is executed. To avoid or neglect the performance of this duty would not be faithful execution of the law, and would thus be a violation of the separation of powers, which the Congress and the Courts have several options to remedy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Procedures

So this means 2 things:
1.
The US Attorney General, who is Barr at the moment, has the power to tell any US Attorney to not prosecute a case.
The US Attorney for the District of Columbia is Jessie K. Liu, oppointed by Trump.

2. Trump/WH will sue, arguing the unitary executive theory. As Trump said publicly a month or so ago, they will sue, and if they lose, they will appeal all the way to the top.
The chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is....Merrick Garland.

18 replies, 1381 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sez here Barr can block any Contempt of Congress citations. (Original post)
dixiegrrrrl Apr 24 OP
malaise Apr 24 #1
dixiegrrrrl Apr 24 #5
WhiteTara Apr 24 #9
tritsofme Apr 24 #12
onenote Apr 24 #2
Freethinker65 Apr 24 #3
Grasswire2 Apr 24 #4
dixiegrrrrl Apr 24 #13
corbettkroehler Apr 24 #6
duforsure Apr 24 #7
Duppers Apr 24 #10
dixiegrrrrl Apr 24 #14
wryter2000 Apr 24 #8
tritsofme Apr 24 #11
Volaris Apr 24 #16
tritsofme Apr 24 #17
Volaris Apr 24 #18
Volaris Apr 24 #15

Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:22 PM

1. Merrick Garland.

Full circle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:52 PM

5. There IS the option of 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 reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation)


but that was last used in 1934.

Good news is anyone found guilty of contempt cannot have a Presidential Pardon. Or not a legal one, at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:34 PM

9. Sounds like that needs to be brushed off

and used today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 04:56 PM

12. If this is such a viable option, why do you suppose House Republicans never used it against Obama or

Clinton officials? Even after citing Eric Holder for criminal contempt of Congress? I don’t think it is because they were nice guys with warm fuzzy feeling for Holder...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:38 PM

2. Not a new concept. Obama blocked the prosecution of Eric Holder when he was cited for contempt

of Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:47 PM

3. Fine. Make Barr do it several times for real Trump affiliated low-lifes. Expose Barr-partisan hack.

AG for protecting Trump and not enforcing laws or protecting the constitution. Shine the light on these assholes and make them own and defend their decisions as they destroy the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:47 PM

4. "...some proponents of the Unitary Executive theory argue....."

That ARGUMENT does not denote or confer power to tell any US Attorney to not prosecute a case.

It's an opinion, not a law. It's an argument, not fact.

So your conclusion #1 is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grasswire2 (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 08:04 PM

13. Barr does not need or care about if an opinion is right/wrong or lawful.


As long as he is AG, he does have the authority to tell any US attorney what to do or not do.
and he certainly will be willing to support the unitary theory.

tis also an opinion that you can't charge a sitting Pres. with crimes. Yet, to do so, will immediately start a prolonged court battle, which can carry on past the election.

All the obstruction of justice crimes attributed to trump have a statute of limitations, which is a year or more past the 2020 election. ( sez Maddow in her broadcast the other night)

trick is, to get him out of office before the crimes run past limitations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:57 PM

6. Entirely A Question Of Enforcement

The United States Capitol has cells to detain those charged with contempt. To my knowledge, they seldom are used for that purpose and never for the long term.

As a practical matter, prosecution of Contempt of Congress can be stopped or disregarded by the AG. This is part of the importance of keeping the DOJ impartial as much as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:10 PM

7. Remember,

Nixon had two ag's that ended up in jail for what they did too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 04:21 PM

10. That's because the Congress went along with the rule of Law.

We're now being ruled by a very corrupt minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 08:11 PM

14. Yep, I remember well.


These cocky S.O.B.s think they are above the law...we shall see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:19 PM

8. Impeach Barr

Start impeachments with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 04:28 PM

11. The construction of this thread is very confusing. Unitary Executive Theory has nothing to do with

DOJ declining to prosecute a contempt citation from Congress. In 2012, DOJ similarly declined to prosecute Eric Holder, despite a contempt citation from the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #11)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 08:29 PM

16. Well, Eric Holder wasn't gonna prosecute himself lol...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #16)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 08:41 PM

17. Therein lies the problem. Any criminal contempt citation sent over by today's House

would be similarly ignored by the DOJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #17)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 08:51 PM

18. I would put to you that the solution to this problem is as follows:

A Constitutional Amendment that would allow Congress AND the SC (with the approval of the other ONLY) to enforce their own actions against an executive branch unwilling to do it's job.

Assign one USMarshalls unit to the Congress and the SC, and have that office able to enforce the will of that branch OUTSIDE of the executive branch.

Because that's what your county sheriff does...enforce the Will of the State Judicary. This issue was solved inside ALL State level constitituions, BECAUSE IT WAS OVERLOOKED by the men who wrote and signed the US Constitution...and no federal remedy has been yet suggested, to the best of my knowledge.

Congress should have had the Constitutional Power to DRAG Kkkarl Rove into the Chamber , and testify under penalty of inprisonment, but the ONLY human in the country that could have MADE that happen was George W. Bush.

Guess who didn't show up.
Just sayin....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 08:28 PM

15. Hrmmm. Can the US ATTY for DC do it against the wishes of the AG?

The reason I ask, is because once a GJ has been empanelled, that body is not subject to executive branch oversight (it functions as a part of the Judicial Branch).

And I would sumbit that no matter what happens with Trump overall, these are good questions to ask, because in the long run, it will force congress to address lapses and oversights in our constitituional system that clearly need addressing (even tho it hasn't been necessary to this point in our history.).

Having the worst criminal president in history, WILL force some kind of response I think , AND Jill Stien and her ilk can still fuck off and move to russia for all I care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread