Steny Hoyer...No inherent contempt

[pbmus]

Link to tweet

[Funtatlaguy]

1. Damn, if shoe was on the other foot

you know that they would jail Dems
We play to frogging nice with crooks.

[Garrett78]

12. They totally would. But, then, no Democratic Administration would be this corrupt.

[lark]

2. I disagree, but hope I'm wrong and this works?

I just don't trust SCOTUS to side with the USA and its' constitution above their party - the rw Russian repugs.

[Wellstone ruled]

3. He still does not get it!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

6. Nope. What will it take? nt

[triron]

13. No shit! wtf! Grow a spine already.

Trumpkins will laugh at this.

[StarfishSaver]

19. He undoubtedly "gets it" better than you or I do.

But, by all means, assume you have superior understanding and knowledge about this than the Number Two guy in House Leadership.

[Freethinker65]

4. Mistake not to use congressional power. If they do not use it, they will lose it

Inherent contempt should be used when necessary. Courts will serve to delay the process which is what the GOP wants for now. That may change.

[Sneederbunk]

5. Ever get tired of being told something can't be done?

[TidalWave46]

7. It's a very good move if they are confident the courts will move quickly. NT

[triron]

14. Bull shit.

[TidalWave46]

16. Deep thought. Very deep. NT

[StarfishSaver]

21. It's rather amusing watching people who insisted that Pelosi would was too scared or too clueless

to impeach and would never start impeachment, just weeks after the Speaker dropped-kicked Trump onto the impeachment bonfire and threw egg all over their faces, pick themselves up, dust themselves up and start right back up telling her she doesn't know what she's doing, without missing a beat.

[pbmus]

25. I am not attacking Speaker...

We are simply looking at present court time frames and present campaigns realities...

And the Con has already murdered people in plain sight and these republicans are not gonna do anything other than feel sorry..

[StarfishSaver]

28. I didn't say you were attacking her

I'm calling out people who second-guess her at every turn, even after being proved completely wrong. If that doesn't describe you, I wasn't referring to you.

[pbmus]

30. It is not a good picture when Democrats will not use all the tools

In there tool bag when republicans will murder our allies...

Just doesn’t compute...

[StarfishSaver]

39. It's an even worse picture when Democrats get caught up trying to use "tools" that don't work

and only clog up the funnel.

It's also not a good picture when people who don't have much of a clue and no experience or responsibility at all decide they know better than the people who do have the knowledge, experience and responsibility to actually make this work and lecture them about what they should be doing.

And the strange flood and pattern of these kinds of attacks on House Democrats make me suspicious about motivations.

[pbmus]

41. So inherent Contempt is clogging the funnel...

I believe it’s using a plunger..

[StarfishSaver]

42. No. It will clog the funnel like you can't imagine

It would be tied up in court for years, not to mention, be a huge fiasco that would do nothing to get us any closer to impeachment, which is supposed to be the goal, right?

[pbmus]

58. You are wrong...and again what is your motive?

‘Currently, Congress can achieve its endgame of fining federal officials through an indirect route of civil contempt or criminal contempt. In both cases, Congress would have to initiate a lawsuit (either civil or criminal), obtain a favorable order from a judge, and ultimately ask the judge to use the court’s contempt power to impose a fine on the contemnor. However, it is unclear whether Congress can instead issue the fines itself, without having to resort to the courts first.

If Congress can issue a fine unilaterally, this power would be more in line with Congress’s inherent contempt power of arresting federal officials—the only avenue of enforcement that courts have so far recognized as not requiring judicial involvement. In both cases of arresting or fining a federal official under the inherent contempt power,

Congress can exercise its power first and the action will be subject to review by the courts only after the fact. Therefore, as Schiff has noted, the possibility of fining federal officials under inherent contempt power ameliorates one significant problem with relying on courts to fine officials, namely, the arduous and time-consuming process of obtaining a judicial order’

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-congress-fine-federal-officials-under-its-contempt-0

[StarfishSaver]

68. Read the entire piece and consider the difference between power to impose and ability to collect

As I said in another post, Congress has the power to impose fines just as it has the power to issue subpoenas. The problem is enforcement. And as I've explained, enforcing/collecting the fine will be just as problematic, complicated contentious, and time-consuming as trying to enforce a subpoena. The fines won't magically fly from their pockets into Congress's coffers.

And if you think that Giuliani, Mnuchin, Barr, et al, will be any more willing to pay a fine imposed by Congress than they have been to answer subpoenas issued by them, no wonder you're having difficulty understanding this.

As to my motive, it's to use my experience and expertise to explain complicated processes to people interested in understanding how this works so that they aren't confused and misled by the volumes if misinformation flooding the internet.

[pbmus]

70. Enough...like Mulvaney you should stop Talking...

Congress can exercise its power first and the action will be subject to review by the courts only after the fact. Therefore, as Schiff has noted, the possibility of fining federal officials under inherent contempt power ameliorates one significant problem with relying on courts to fine officials, namely, the arduous and time-consuming process of obtaining a judicial order’

[StarfishSaver]

71. Lol - I'm sure you'd love that so no one with knowledge would challenge you

But don't count on it.

And your repeated citing of this article and Schiff's comments in it is particularly amusing since neither it nor he support the erroneous claim you insist on making.

There's no question that Congress has the power to impose a fine. That's not the point. What you don't seem to understand is that there's a difference between having the power to do something and actually being able to do it.

As I told you several times - but. will. say. again. slowly. in. case. anyone. reading. this. might. be. tempted. to. think. your. incorrect. assumptions. are. true - just as Congress having the POWER to subpoena a witness doesn't mean the witness will appear without a fight that eventually must be resolved in the courts, Congress having the POWER to impose a fine doesn't mean they will collect that fine without a fight that eventually must be resolved in the courts.

Any lawyer who has ever tried a civil case for damage will tell you there are critical differences between having the right to obtain and collect on a judgment, and actually collecting on that judgment.

I'm not sure why that seems to be so difficult for you to grasp or why you think that giving smartass responses to a lawyer who not only knows the law better than you do but has patiently explained it to you several times somehow changes the law and facts of this matter.

I can't control how you choose to engage on this topic, but I'm glad I can set the record straight for people who are actually interested in facts about the law and process.

[pbmus]

72. This is your argument...

- just as Congress having the POWER to subpoena a witness doesn't mean the witness will appear without a fight that eventually must be resolved in the courts, Congress having the POWER to impose a fine doesn't mean they will collect that fine without a fight that eventually must be resolved in the courts.

This is my answer...which I am certain you do not understand...because black is white and grey is pink....

Congress can exercise its power first and the action will be subject to review by the courts only after the fact. Therefore, as Schiff has noted, the possibility of fining federal officials under inherent contempt power ameliorates one significant problem with relying on courts to fine officials, namely, the arduous and time-consuming process of obtaining a judicial order’

[StarfishSaver]

73. They can exercise their power to impose a fine.

Schiff has said that. I have said that. You have said that. So we're all in agreement that Congress has the power to order someone to pay a fine.

Now, how do you propose they actually make them pay that fine?

Please be specific. That shouldn't be hard. Just read the whole article you keep citing - it gives some options for collecting fines.

And then, after you read it, please explain how any of those options can and be exercised in a way that would result in prompt payment without any court involvement.

[StarfishSaver]

74. No response?

Perhaps, after thinking it through, you came to understand that Congress' power to impose a fine under inherent contempt does not mean that it can force anyone to pay those fines without court intervention.

[choie]

36. And how about people

Who never question authority, regardless of party..

[StarfishSaver]

40. How about them?

[sinkingfeeling]

8. With all the Trump appointees, I don't think that's wise

[mjvpi]

9. Two more months and Senate GOP will say "let the public decide" in 2020

Without passing any election integrity legislation. They should use inherent contempt

[Garrett78]

10. Subpoena fights will get tied up in courts for months or even years. We don't have the time.

[pbmus]

15. We are headed towards the worst campaign year in America's history..

An impeached illegitimate POS potus and an oligarch funded propaganda trash machine...

While the entire world is on fire...UNFRINKINBELIEVABLE

And, the Con still has the nuclear codes...to 50+ nuclear warheads in Turkey...KYAGB

[StarfishSaver]

20. And you think trying to throw people in jail in the House basement will move things along quicker?

Okaaay...

[pbmus]

22. Along with the threat of jail is also the levy of fines...

[StarfishSaver]

23. Uh, hunh

That will really scare them into complying with a subpoena right away.

[triron]

26. Why are you so quick to throw water on what many of us here believe are strong countermeasures to

Trump administration's lawlessness?

[pbmus]

27. $25k a day...ain't pocket change...well maybe to you it's change

[StarfishSaver]

29. You know they'd have to go to court to collect the fines, right?

How speedy do you think that process will be?

[pbmus]

31. Faster due to inherent Contempt laws...

[pbmus]

63. No, wrong, wrong, wrong...your entire argument is wrong...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-congress-fine-federal-officials-under-its-contempt-power

[StarfishSaver]

67. You didn't read the entire piece you cited, did you?

If you had, you would have seen that it differentiates between Congress' power to impose a fine and its ability to collect it. In fact, if you took the time to read the lengthy analysis of the issue, you would better understand why trying to collect a fine would lead to litigation as protracted as that pursuant to enforcing a subpoena.

Congress' power to collect the fines is like it's power to issue subpoenas. Just as issuing subpoenas doesn't mean people will appear, Congress can impose fines to its heart's content, but that doesn't mean people will pay them.

Fines don't magically transmit from a person's bank account or paycheck into Congress' hands. The person has to write a check, pay in cash or turn over property to pay the fine. And if they don't, the contemnor's wages can be garnished, bank account(s) attached, and/or real or personal property seized - but that can only be done pursuant to specific statutes and/or court order.

if the contemnor is a government employee, Congress can order the Treasury Department to garnish their wages. Good luck with that. If you think Mnuchin's Treasury Department is any more likely to garnish a Trump official's wages because Congress says so than it has been to turn over Trump's tax returns because Congress said so, well ...

If the contemnor is not a government employee, unless you're operating under the mistaken belief that Giuliani, et al, will just write a check because Congress told them to, the matter will end up in court before Congress could collect a dime.

The bottom line is that, like many of the "solutions" some keyboard warriors love to demand Pelosi take because they're certain they know the law and process so much better than she does, inherent contempt is considerably more complicated and less effective than you assume and likely wouldn't achieve the result you think it will.

As I keep saying, Pelosi and her team know what they're doing and have already considered every option you and others keep pushing online as if you're the first people to have thought of it. The more people insist they know better than she does - while she eats her detractors' lunch every day - the clearer it becomes why the country is lucky to have her at the helm of this endeavor.

[Garrett78]

24. I didn't say that. I just said we don't have time for a court battle.

We need systemic change.

[StarfishSaver]

33. You think the House can exercise its inherent contempt authority without a court battle?

I don't why you think that, if the House tries to assert its inherent contempt powers, Trump and his people will just submit to being arrested or fined without tying the House up in court.

It's not some magical thing that will suddenly make Trump say, "Inherent contempt? Damn! You got me!" and either turn over the testimony and documents or quietly submit to being locked up or fined.

[Garrett78]

38. Are you even reading my posts to which you're replying?

Once again, all I said was that we don't have time for a court battle.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Perhaps I misunderstood you

When you referred to a court battle over the subpoenas, I assumed you were separating that from a court battle over inherent contempt. If I was wrong, my apologies.

[StarfishSaver]

43. A fight over inherent contempt would be tied up in court even longer

[pbmus]

64. Wrong....

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-congress-fine-federal-officials-under-its-contempt-power

[beachbumbob]

11. House leadership doing all they can to " " as I can"t write it

and then face being reported. We all know what this going to do if they continue this way

[Voltaire2]

17. Way to pull the aces from your deck.

As a party we are terrible at this partisan thing.

[Botany]

18. Pompeo's refusal of the House's subpoena is classic inherent contempt

n/t

[evertonfc]

32. wimp

Another weak, Washington insider that doesn't understand how to fight in 2019. Need a new generation of brawlers or we will lose this country. What an idiotic statement. The courts, lol

[spanone]

34. No time to play softball.

republicans are happy to drag this out....why accommodate them?

[pbmus]

35. Bingo...

[StarfishSaver]

45. Why do you think using the inherent contempt authority will speed things up?

Please walk us through exactly how you think the process would work and how it would get the Dems the testimony and documents they're seeking in the impeachment proceedings faster than following the process they're using?

[spanone]

46. Please walk you through? Bwahahahahahaaa

[StarfishSaver]

47. Yes. Why is that so funny?

Given how confident people are about why it is absolutely necessary to use it, walking us through the process and explaining its advantages over the current approach should be a cinch.

[spanone]

48. I would like them to use it. To send a message to these criminals. No speed up. No cinch.

[StarfishSaver]

49. You don't seem to understand that the minute they try to "use it," they'll get taken right to court

the case will be tied up for months, at least, and, in the meantime, nothing at all will happen.

Inherent contempt is not some magical process that can be invoked and Giuliani, et al, will be spirited off to jail in the Capitol basement where they will rot or have their bank accounts attached until they break down and agree to testify. That's pure fantasy.

[spanone]

50. What's one more court case?

[StarfishSaver]

51. LOL

Right back to square one, right?

[spanone]

52. No. They would have invoked it. We wouldn't be 'back'. We'd be right where we are.

[StarfishSaver]

54. Exactly.

And it's not "us" i said was back at square one. I was talking about you and your circular argument.

[spanone]

56. whatever you say!

[pbmus]

59. I am starting to believe you have a circular argument...

[pbmus]

65. Wrong...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-congress-fine-federal-officials-under-its-contempt-power

[pbmus]

66. Wrong...

[Baked Potato]

53. Ahhh, such a good time

to be alive. Stress testing humanity.

[Triloon]

55. Nancy was wrong about impeachment and Steny is wrong about contempt.

Inherent contempt should be used, and used liberally. The more of these bastards are behind bars the safer the rest of us are. Steny declaring that it won't be used is disarming himself in the middle of battle. This wimpy decision guarantees continuing obstruction.

[pnwmom]

62. Nancy has proven she was absolutely correct about how to handle impeachment.

What good would it have done for the House to have impeached him a year ago and then nothing happened in the Senate?

At least now Trump's impeachment, and all the evidence collected, can come out in the primaries and general election -- even if the Senate refuses to convict.

[budkin]

57. Hoyer sucks

Never been able to stomach him

[NCLefty]

60. I heard there wasn't even a jail cell they could use.

I'm not sure if that's true, but it would make doing this pretty hard, eh?

[pbmus]

61. Fines...up to 25k daily...

This will help..

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-congress-fine-federal-officials-under-its-contempt-power

[StarfishSaver]

69. How do you propose they collect this $25k per day?

If you bother to actually read the piece you keep linking to, you'll get some ideas.

But, then, you'd also see that I'm absolutely right.