Please stop criticizing Nadler for not arresting Lewandowski on the spot yesterday

[StarfishSaver]

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2019, 10:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Neither the Judiciary Committee chairman nor Congress, as a whole, has the power to arrest anyone "on the spot," even under their inherent contempt authority.

There's a procedure that must be followed.

Among other things, the committee has to first vote to recommend he be held in contempt. That's usually done in markup, a proceeding that requires several days notice and that must be postponed an additional week if the minority requests.
If the measure passes, it is sent to the floor for a full House vote.

It may be possible for the Committee to vote to hold him in contempt during the hearing without a markup and floor vote, but I'm not aware of any process for doing that.

Once Congress officially cites the witness for contempt. At that point, there are three different avenues that can be taken for enforcement:

1) refer the citation to the US Attorney for DC and ask them to enforce the citation with an arrest or prosecution. Since the US Attorney reports to the Attorney General, good luck with that;

2) go to court to ask it to enforce the contempt citation; or

3) use its Inherent Contempt power and order Lewandowski to be arrested or fined.

But as soon as that order is issued, Lewandowski's due process rights kick in and he can ask a court to determine if the arrest is valid. Upon receiving Lewandowski's petition, the court would likely issue a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the Sergeant-at-Arms from arresting him and blocking any effort to exact a fine, pending resolution of the case.

And, assuming the court eventually rules that Congress can arrest him, it's not clear how that arrest would actually be carried out since, among other things, it hasn't never been established whether the Sergeant-at-Arms jurisdiction extends beyond Capitol grounds.

The whole "use their contempt authority to arrest him on spot" demand has no basis in law or procedure.

[mcar]

1. Stop getting in the way

of a good DU Dem bashing. Facts are irrelevant!

[we can do it]

9. 😂

[Perseus]

44. This is a very unfair comment, I will tell you why

The fact is that many Democrats are very frustrated with the snail pace that Democrats have taken to reach an "Impeachment Inquiry" of which Mrs. Pelosi has not endorsed yet and which adds to the frustration.

The fact that Democrats have not been aggressive enough to make sure the subpoenas have the appropriate response and are not ignored. Yes, it may take time to go through the process, but lets talk about the subpoenas that were issued months ago, like the one on McGhan and nothing has happened, where is the progress on that? Which items from that checklist on this post have been completed? Facts get in the way? No, ignoring the facts is what gets in the way.

Two more people failed to respond to the subpoenas to appear in front of Congress yesterday, where in that checklist are we?

I know DU has a fanatical following on Pelosi, but she is doing a disservice by not supporting the impeachment inquiry, even Al Gore said it yesterday. He said what many Democrats have already said, and he addressed Pelosi directly about it. (not verbatim) "There comes a time when we need to protect our Democracy, when political calculations must be ignored because not impeaching has more dire consequences".

People want to compare the impeachment of Bill Clinton to this one as a possible political backlash, and there is no comparison, Clinton's was about a blow job from a woman, this one is about treason, I think that when the citizens learn the facts and they understand that IT IS TREASON and self-enrichment, that they will be for impeachment, and I feel that even the Senate will have to pay attention.

The fact that some people do not want Biden as the nominee and I believe we have good reason for it, the fact that you don't agree with us doesn't mean that we are ignoring the facts, maybe it is the other way around. Someone at DU said that the more people point out Biden's gaffes and faults the more he/she loves him? Come on!, that is not a Democratic-liberal way of thinking. We, Democrats are sometimes at fault for being so accepting of other people's way of thinking, of looking very hard at the facts, for understanding when something doesn't live up to Democratic ideals and then we refuse to accept them, but we don't go blindly kissing anyone's feet, that is not what Democrat-Liberals do, that is what MAGATs do.

DU should be a place where fanatism doesn't live, where the exchange of ideas and information is going to help us all gain a better understanding of our candidates, to check out if what they say is what they do, if they live up to progressive ideals which is, in my opinion, what this country needs now. We have never been fanatics, why start now?

To tell you the truth, I am concerned about the push republicans have to make it look like they are afraid of Biden, that Biden has them so worried they cannot sleep at night. Why would they be? They know Biden well, last time he negotiated with "Mitch" he gave the house away.

Anyway, I have said a lot, I do think it is an unfair comment because people are genuinely frustrated, every day we see the creature and his minions disrespect the rule of law, they pass bills that only benefit them and their class, we watch them as they destroy bills just because Obama implemented them, and we don't see a real push back by Democratic leaders, if that is not frustrating I don't know what is.

[StarfishSaver]

45. What does Biden have to do with this?

Or Peloai, for that matter, since the OP has nothing to do with either of them?

[Perseus]

47. I have to assume you read the post I answered to and you read mine completely

He/she made a sarcastic comment about facts, so in my answer I extend to other things that I see happening in DU, like fanatism towards a couple of Democratic leaders. I never said Biden had anything to do with the original post, but I did use Pelosi to explain about the frustration that many Democrats have at this time from her lack of support to the impeachment process.

The reason Biden came into my discussion is because people who are fanatical towards Biden are bent to ignore the facts of his gaffes, his positions. I thought that by reading my post it would be clear why Biden and Pelosi came to my discussion, I guess not. Forgive me if I have not explained myself completely, I thought I had.

[StarfishSaver]

54. I've read that post and yours. That's why I asked the question

I get that you have a weird obsession with Biden and Pelosi ...

[Perseus]

59. No, I don't have the obsession, other people seem to, and that is what I am talking about.

You see? These are facts, Biden and Pelosi supporters get very defensive when someone points out a negative about them.

If one opines on the frustration of Pelosi not supporting the impeachment inquiry, people get on ones case because to them Pelosi is the greatest, and she is only human who makes mistakes like any other human. Is she good at what she does? yes, she is, she is awsome, but on the impeachment issue she has a lot of Democrats frustrated.

If one reports on a Biden gaffe, or Biden saying something that most Democrats do not agree with, like paraphrasing David Brooks for example, the Biden supporters get on ones case. This is what I am trying to explain about people ignoring the facts because they love their candidate.

I have a feeling your comment "I get that you have a weird obsession with Biden and Pelosi " is meant as an insult, but that is just ignoring the facts. I am trying to pick a candidate that will not only represent us Democrats, but the entire nation as well, one who will not take us back, but forward, one who will truly make our country better, if that end ups being Biden then I will be with him all the way, not only that, but if he is the nominee I will support him 100%, whether I agree with him or not.

If we want to have a healthy conversation we must be able to point to facts about all the candidates, otherwise we are all wasting our time.

[StarfishSaver]

61. As I said. You have a weird obsession with Biden and Pelosi ...

Got it

[Perseus]

63. As I said, your only argument seems to be the insult

Kind of petty, don't you think so?

[cwydro]

71. Yep.

[SunSeeker]

76. Yep. Ironic huh?

She posts an OP telling DUers to stop bashing Dems, then she proceeds to bash DUers (who are Dems!) posting in the thread.

[mcar]

48. Huh?

The fact that some people do not want Biden as the nominee and I believe we have good reason for it, the fact that you don't agree with us doesn't mean that we are ignoring the facts, maybe it is the other way around. Someone at DU said that the more people point out Biden's gaffes and faults the more he/she loves him? Come on!, that is not a Democratic-liberal way of thinking. We, Democrats are sometimes at fault for being so accepting of other people's way of thinking, of looking very hard at the facts, for understanding when something doesn't live up to Democratic ideals and then we refuse to accept them, but we don't go blindly kissing anyone's feet, that is not what Democrat-Liberals do, that is what MAGATs do.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

[Perseus]

55. Which part don't you understand and I will try to clarify it for you

You didn't see the post someone wrote a couple of days ago about "that Biden's gaffes and negatives by other people would make him/her love Biden more"? That is what I call ignoring the facts.

I am trying to explain how facts are ignored when these point to one's chosen candidate, Biden and Pelosi seem to get the strongest reactions. I know Pelosi is not a candidate...just want to make sure.

Please help me understand what you don't understand and I will do my best to explain.

Thank you

[Maraya1969]

74. Thank you. Many here, including myself are very frustrated and we feel as if the evil thugs

are getting away with things they shouldn't get away with. Certainly if it was any of us in the situation; not at a congressional level, we would be arrested.

And most of us here are just ordinary Americans. We don't know all the rules and laws. But we do know what seems right and what seem very unfair.

And we are afraid. What is happening in our country is scary. We want and we need a hero.

[Firestorm49]

90. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Bettie]

92. Thanks for this

Glad to see more and more people speaking up.

We may be screaming into the void, but at least we're not alone.

[sharedvalues]

2. Ok, so: hold in contempt

And let them fight the Inherent Contempt arrest warrant in the courts.

Nadler and the Dems could be doing this.

[StarfishSaver]

4. Did you read my whole post?

Do you think that it's worth the Committee's time and effort to spend the next several months fighting for the ability to arrest Corey Lewandowski for contempt?

What would be the result of they prevail?

If they do finally manage, after months of litigation, to arrest him and drag him back before the committee, what do you think they'd get him to say that he didn't say yesterday.

And what if he still refuses to testify the way they want? Then what?

[chowder66]

20. Also this....

1/ The question of the day seemed to be: Why wasn’t Lewandowski held in contempt and arrested?

Short thread⤵️ No need need. He gave the Democrats what they needed.

Link to tweet

…
Art. 3 for Nixon’s impeachment was that he impeded the House’s power of impeachment. . .
Quote Tweet

Teri Kanefield
@Teri_Kanefield
· 22h
No need. He gave the Democrats what they needed.

He provided testimony under oath that the White House is obstructing the House inquiry.

He also admitted that he lied to Fox and the media, and basically admitted that he talked freely to Mueller because he had immunity.

Link to tweet

…

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

24. Exactly

There's nothing more they need to get out of him.

[Pacifist Patriot]

64. That's a good thread others should read and consider.

I like Teri Kanefield. I'm not on Twitter anymore, but she is one of the few people I check in on from time to time to see what she has to say.

[chowder66]

67. She has a blog where she turns her tweets into an article.

https://terikanefield-blog.com

[sharedvalues]

26. Yes it is worth it.

Here’s why

That’s an ex senate aide

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

28. The issue isn't so much whether it's worth it to use it

But whether it's worth it to use it on Lewandowski.

Not only is it not certain they would prevail, even if they did, it wouldn't get them anymore information from him that they already got yesterday.

[sharedvalues]

30. Someone needs to be made an example of

The gop responds only to power.

Why let levandowski invoke a false privilege and get away with it? If you do that you weaken your stand with every future witness.

[StarfishSaver]

32. True

But they'd be better off going after someone who openly decide the subpoena and whose testimony they still need, like McGahn, rather than chasing after Lewansowski, who did actually show up and answer questions and has a pretty strong defense against contempt charges

[Perseus]

46. How many people have been subpoenaed and have not complied?

McGhan, Hope...Two I can think of and they have not been forced to come back, that checklist the author of this post showed has not been followed. There has been plenty of time to hold those two in contempt, same as Don Jr.

Someone needs to be held in contempt and the full weight of the law must be thrown on them to make an example, then all the rest will follow suit and will begin complying as they should, but while nothing is done what motivation is there to comply?

This is simple, I don't understand why it is so hard for Democratic leaders to understand, is it Pelosi holding them? What is going on?

[StarfishSaver]

51. The Committee has held people in contempt and has gone to court for enforcement

[Perseus]

53. If you don't mind, can you list the names of those who have been held in contempt?

And if a litigation is going on in the courts to validate the contempt? How long ago did McGhan refuse to appear? Is he one of them?

If you have links can you please share them? I am sure a lot of us would like to know. I have to confess that I have not seen anything of the sort in the news.

Thank you

[StarfishSaver]

58. Barr and Ross have been held in contempt

However, it was the Oversight Committee, not the Judiciary Committee.

[Perseus]

60. How about McGhan and Hope?

These two should have been, Hope appeared but refused to answer most questions, McGhan did not even show up.

Someone needs to be made an example, Democrats need to send the message that they mean business. We are running out of time, stores are already decorating for Christmas, the year will be over very soon. I am worried.

[azureblue]

56. Not necessarily Lew

But anyone who defies the committee with obvious lies, sandbagging, etc.

"has no basis in law or procedure."

Yeah, and neither does what these Goopers are doing have any basis in law or procedure. They ignore questions. they treat committee members with contempt. They refuse to answer questions, They claim immunity. What they are doing defies the law. So what is wrong with turning around on them? if they do not want to obey the law, then why not make up some grounds, where based in law or not, and pitch the first one that refuses to answer questions?

This is one thing the Goopers know - they can walk all over the law, they are above the law, they can bend the rules and there will be no repercussions. Why do you think they act so arrogant? They know they will never be brought to task, because we play by the rules. They know they can tie us up in court with delays and scurrilous reasons, and we will sit there and just respond to the latest crime with no action. And by the time we have responded to their latest legal delay they have committed more crimes.

So I think The proper thing to do is give them a taste of their own medicine. Next one that lies to the committee, refuses to answer questions, etc., just lock them up right there. Drag every Gooper Don told not to talk, in front of the committee and jail them when they do not talk. If they claim immunity tell the lairs that they do not have immunity. (Remind them of all the crap they did to Susan MacDougal - use that as precedent) OF course the Goopers will howl. Let them. And do what they do, tie them up in court when they try to get their liar out of jail. Make them jump through endless legal hoops. All it take would be a couple of on the spot jailings and they will take notice that we are tired of them and their screwing around, and punishment will not be delayed again. And while they are howling about that, jail another one, get Don's taxes and make them public. Quit being polite. Time to play rough.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Once again, the voice of reason, but you're spoiling some people's fun!

It would have been kind of cool, though, if somebody had punched Lewandowsky in the groin.

[gldstwmn]

33. Punched in the mouth would have been better but

that's just me.

[Hortensis]

5. Good post. Yes, Wm Barr would have to prosecute the people's

case against Lewandowski for contempt of congress. That'd be like expecting the corrupt, black-hatted sheriff in an old western to protect the nice farm family against the avaricious rancher instead of murdering and running them off the land. Not going to happen.

I did hear Judiciary is considering the option of fining these people, which apparently would not require Barr's cooperation. A single fine cannot exceed $100,000. Which makes me wonder how many times Lewandowski was in "inherent contempt" of congress yesterday. ?

"And the only thing that talks around this administration is money. So if you start fining him, let's say, $5,000, $10,000, $15,000 a day, at some point, you are going to get him to comply." ~ Jackie Speier

Someone else commented on the commonality of greed among these people.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I like that idea, although there might be problems with collection.

Can they seize assets to pay the fine?

[LiberalFighter]

14. I would think exacting a fine would be the easiest. And court has less power.

[PoliticAverse]

10. inherent contempt (which would be prosecuted by Congress itself) is different than the criminal

contempt which is prosecuted under the DOJ.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Thanks

I'm not even sure if they can sustain a contempt charge.

First, unlike many others, he didn't defy the subpoena. He showed up and testified. Second, his refusal to respond to some questions was based on the White House's invocation of executive privilege. That's not contempt on his part.

And, finally, while he was rude, obnoxious and evasive in his responses, that doesn't rise to the level of contempt. He answered the questions, regardless how obnoxiously he did it. I think a court would be hard-pressed to accept "he showed up, answered all of our questions except the ones he was told not to answer under executive privilege, but we didn't like his tone" as a basis for putting someone in custody for contempt.

That's not to say he shouldn't be held in contempt, but to say a decision about this is not as cut-and-dry as some people assume and the committee needs to consider and weigh a number of factors. They don't have the luxury of just yelling "lock him up!" regardless how satisfying that might be to some of us.

[tableturner]

36. "...except the ones he was told not to answer under executive privilege..."

There IS no executive privilege in this situation.....this is a FAUX executive privilege that does not exist. I cannot see how a non existent executive privilege can be used as a defense for a contempt charge. Sure, it would have to go to court if he were charged, and the court would decisively strike down this phony nonsense.

One thing for sure: If he is not charged, it won't even go to a court for enforcement.

Another: The longer they wait to charge him with contempt, the longer they would have to wait to get it enforced.

Another: If the situation were reversed, I do not believe the Republicans would let a phony claim like that cause them to delay taking action.

A final one: When the Republicans act aggressively in contentious situations such as this, unlike how the Democrats act, they usually come out ahead.....look at where things in general stand now, and how much of that GOP progress is a product of their aggressive moves.

[StarfishSaver]

38. I agree the executive privilege claim is bogus, but once it's invoked, it's not contempt

for Lewandowski to adhere to it. The contempt is on the part of the WH, not Lewandowski.

[tableturner]

40. Fine...then vote for contempt by the proper party, and get this process going!

Why can't we fight harder? They do, and they get great benefits from doing so.

[Hortensis]

15. Interesting responses. I never make the mistake of

assuming legalities are simple, so no surprise.

Fwiw, Lawrence O'Donnell last night felt sure Lewandowski committed an actionable offense or offenses almost immediately, and this evening Nancy Pelosi said he should have been held in contempt “right then and there” when he talked over members, dodged their questions and promoted his Senate campaign from a House hearing.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Lawrence was wrong

Yes, Lewandowski was rude and obnoxious, but witnesses are frequently nasty and aren't held in contempt. And that's a good thing, since I don't think we want to start encouraging committees to throw people in jail because they don't like their tone.

And in such an instance, arrest wouldn't fly because the arrest is supposed to be coercive, not punitive. In other words, people are arrested for contempt to coerce them into testifying, not as punishment for being jerks.

[ancianita]

79. So swearing an oath to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then refusing,

isn't worth inherent contempt? This isn't the jerk zone. This is contempt for the body he swore an oath to.

Seems like detention by DC police is an appropriate mechanism to force him to reconsider his oath.

[StarfishSaver]

81. Lying under oath isn't the contempt

We all have deas about how this should be handled, but it helps to remember that the House and its lawyers know everything you and I may know - and a whole lot of things we don't.. We can be pretty sure that they've alreadt given due consideration to any idea we may have about what they should do.

[ancianita]

82. Fair point. Yet, if Pelosi said it was contempt, inherent contempt, action could have been taken.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd learn a lot more if, by any means necessary, this half of one branch would ferret out more hoarded secrets by this privilege wielding executive that hides behind its DOJ.

There's too much national security being sold out by this executive, the occupant himself remaining safe by doing that. There's too little help for it, under the law, which erodes public trust.

I hope Pelosi and Nadler come to a clear agreement on how future testimony is conducted. Sticking with Barry Berke at the start of each session would be a next good thing to try.

[StarfishSaver]

83. I think you're right about Berke but I wonder

if the Democrats intentionally saved him for the end so that people could see the contrast. I'm pretty certain that if they had led off with Berke, who was rather dry and undramatic, there would be people who criticized them for them not letting the more fiery members have a chance to question Lewandowski.

People got to see a real contrast between letting individual Members do the questioning and having it done by a skilled cross-examiner. Night and day.

And after watching the Members do it, the viewers were able to better understand the difficulty of dealing with a witness like Lewandowski and appreciate Berke's consummate skill.

It also was a good way for the Members themselves to see that most of them are better off giving up their 5 minutes in the spotlight to allow Berke to do the questioning.

That probably wasn't an intentional strategy, but proceeded in that order really did work out well for the Democrats. Next time, they'll likely let Berke lead off and everyone will fully understand why.

[Baked Potato]

7. He shat on himself and his family honor

He is the poster boy for the definition of a liar. He probably ruined his chance at Senator. The Easter Bunny will fly past his house in protest.

That’s a good start...

[Perseus]

49. " He probably ruined his chance at Senator." Never underestimate the stupidity of republican voters

Do they care the creature is up to 12,000 lies?

[Baked Potato]

57. True, true

They don’t care

[PoliticAverse]

8. "never been established whether the Sergeant-at-Arms jurisdiction extends beyond Capitol grounds."

I would disagree that is has "never been established" since it has in fact been used in the past to arrest someone not on capitol grounds.

[StarfishSaver]

12. The fact that it may have happened in the past doesn't mean it was valid and

would be upheld. The Sergeant-at-Arms geographical jurisdiction doesn't expand just because someone outside of their jurisdiction submitted to theirauthority in the past.

I think there's be a big fight over it if they tried to arrest anyone off-campus.

[PoliticAverse]

13. The fact that something has happened in the past and had been accepted as legally valid...

makes for a good argument that it is legally valid. Why should Congress's "inherent contempt" enforcement power only
hold on "capital grounds"?

[StarfishSaver]

17. It's an argument. That's all.

As I said, jurisdiction isn't changed or expanded for future purposes by virtue of someone outside of that jurisdiction submitting to it.

This isn't a question of the extent of Congress' inherent contempt authority. The issue is whether the Sergeant at Arms can exercise its law enforcement power outside of its jurisdiction.

For example, if you were charged with a crime in NYC but were in New Jersey, a NY City cop couldn't go to New Jersey and arrest you and bring you back to New York. The city would have to arrange for law enforcement duly authorized to operate in New Jersey to arrest you and turn you over.

That may be the case here. If the Sergeant-at-Arms' jurisdiction extends only as far as the Capitol grounds, they can't arrest anyone outside of that perimeter.
.

[PoliticAverse]

19. Unlike New York City, the power of the federal governent extends to all US states and terrorities.

It (like most anything) can certainly be challenged in court.

[StarfishSaver]

23. The House Sergeant-at- Arms isn't the federal government

They do not have nationwide authority to enforce the law anywhere in the country. They don't even have jurisdiction in most parts of Washington, DC.

[bluestarone]

16. Agree here on Lewandowski BUT just wondering after this thread

WHO would make the decision on IF the House could use Inherent Subpoena? (and actually arrest someone) It would definitely be useful sometime down the road right?

[StarfishSaver]

18. That would have to be done by a court

[PoliticAverse]

22. Ultimately the courts. For (85 pages) more on this issue, see...

Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure - Congressional Research Servide
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

[bluestarone]

27. WOW so much to read TY BUT

Again looks like this process will be very time consuming! AGAIN!! No easy answer for the DEMS. right now. TY and Starfishsaver for your help on these issues!!

[PoliticAverse]

31. Repeated appeals can drag these matters out which is why you tend to see negotiated settlements

in the case of reluctant witness testimony.

[gldstwmn]

25. Nadler did the best he could

considering what he had to work with. His hands are tied.

[JI7]

29. there is a lot of misinformation

someone actually thought trump would not be able to make appointments during various impeachment processes.

and some think you only need a majority of Democrats to get impeachment when you need a majority of the entire house.

[StarfishSaver]

34. And, unfortunately, some of this misinformation continues to be spread

regardless how many times it's corrected.

[MsLeopard]

35. I ask myself

what would Republicans do in the same situation. And I have to say, they would be blowing up the freaking country to get the point across that CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS is a crime and it should be dealt with. Granted, Democrats act with respect toward the law, but look where it’s gotten us. We appear weak and ineffective. And perhaps we actually are weak and ineffective given the way things stand at this point in time (Thugs do whatever they want, we don’t).

I would like to see action by Democratic leadership, even if it’s too early, or not the right time, etc., etc. But, since I’m a loyal Democrat I am forced to just watch the Thugs roll over us any time they get the chance. Which is far too often. It’s becoming hard to keep the faith. Sad to say, but it’s how I feel watching this shit show. Just my opinion.....

[Perseus]

52. Very well put. You have clarified the frustration of many Democrats

We all know what the republicans would be doing. I mean, didn't they make a huge fuzz about Obama wearing a tan suit? They had the entire country talking about Obama's tan suit, even though St. Reagan had wore one too.

Not sure who said it, but Democrats have to show to a knife fight with a knife, not with a Bible.

[SunSeeker]

77. +1

[Bettie]

93. +1

Thank you.

And yes, they'd be on screaming about it all the time, acting as one unified whole to condemn, well, everything.

[Amaryllis]

37. So it all sounds pretty hopeless ...like there really is no good way to hold witnesses accountable?

[StarfishSaver]

39. Not hopeless at all

Holding witnesses accountable is important but not the most important thing.The most important thing is to get the information and they got the information they needed from Lewandowski. "Holding him accountable" would be great, but it won't get us any closer to the ultimate goal of building a case for impeachment.

Take heart. Things aren't as dire as you think.

[peaverok]

41. I don't think you understand Inherent Contempt

Sorry, I don't think you understand how Inherent Contempt works in real life. Congress doesn't ask for permission to arrest anyone. They send the Sergeant-at-Arms and his deputized men to arrest someone and bring them back. There is no court fight because Congress will already have the person in their possession. That person could ask for relief from the court system but they would still be in the congressional "jail" and congress could question them all day long. They don't go to the justice department (executive) or courts (judicial) to ask if it is ok to go arrest someone. If they had to ask permission from another branch then it wouldn't be inherent then would it? If the other branch that "grants permission" is corrupted then Congress is now powerless? That is not how this works.


Also, the criticism really isn't that they didn't "arrest him on the spot". It is that they will NEVER arrest him. Knowing that the justice department is compromised and knowing that fines can be paid by the wealthy that are in cahoots (i.e. our BILLIONAIRE president) you have no choice but to use the third option. They will NOT use it which means they have no power at all. If they only use options 1 or 2 (justice or executive) they are saying we as congress have NO power so could one of you other branches help us out here because YOU actually do have power. That means they aren't an equal branch of government. They have inherent contempt because they ARE equal and you can't depend on the other branches helping you out. If they don't ever use their inherent power then they are seeding all power to the other branches because you can have all the hearings you want but if you depend on the other branch to be your enforcer then you are totally powerless no matter what powers the constitution says they have.

[tableturner]

42. 100% agree!

[Ferrets are Cool]

43. Thank you for this

[StarfishSaver]

50. I understand it very well

Last edited Thu Sep 19, 2019, 10:36 AM - Edit history (1)

No. Congress doesn't go to court to ask permission to arrest someone. But the minute Congress issues an order to arrest Lewandowski or anyone else under its inherent contempt authority, he would almost certainly go straight to court to obtain an injunction, which would very likely be granted. (My OP said their habeas corpus rights kick in when. I meant to say their due process rights - you're right that habeas corpus comes after the arrest - I've since edited it).

The courts most definitely would get involved in this process before an arrest is actually made, if it got that far.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

62. "cannot be inquired into by a court by a writ of habeus corpus."

4. Where a proceeding for contempt is within the jurisdiction of a House of Congress, the questions whether the person arrested is guilty or has so far purged himself that he does not deserve punishment are questions for that House to decide, and which cannot be inquired into by a court by a writ of habeas corpus. P. 294 U. S. 152.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/

[StarfishSaver]

65. You ignored the first part of that sentence: "the questions whether the person arrested is guilty"

The Court didn't rule that a person can't petition for a writ of habeas corpus ruling his arrest for contempt was unlawful. It held that the Court's review of of habeas corpus petitions in such cases is limited to determining whether the House or Senate had jurisdiction to issue the citation and make the arrest but the Court can't resolve the question of guilt.

He points to the allegations in the petition for habeas corpus that he had surrendered all papers in his possession; that he was ready and willing to give any additional testimony which the Committee might require; that he had secured the return of the papers taken from the files by Givven, with his permission; and that he was in no way responsible for the removal and destruction of the papers by Brittin. This contention goes to the question of guilt, not to that of the jurisdiction of the Senate. The contempt with which MacCracken is charged is "the destruction and removal of certain papers." Whether he is guilty, and whether he has so far purged himself of contempt . . . are the questions which the Senate proposes to try. The respondent to the petition did not, by demurring, transfer to the court the decision of those questions. The sole function of the writ of habeas corpus is to have the court decide whether the Senate has jurisdiction to make the determination which it proposes.

If you read the whole case, rather than just pluck one out-of-context bullet from the syllabus, you'll see that the Court not only entertained MacCracken's habeas corpus petition, it made rulings on other aspects of his habeas corpus request - something the Court could do only if it recognized it's own jurisdiction to conduct a habeas corpus review of the Senate's action.

A person arrested pursuant to the House's inherent contempt can indeed petition a court for a writ of habeas corpus.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

66. I've read the whole case multiple times

[StarfishSaver]

68. Then you should know that the Court didn't rule as you suggested

and that a court can indeed rule on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus submitted by a petitioner arrested by the House for contempt.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

72. I didn't suggest, I quoted the ruling

I think maybe we're talking past each other here. I didn't dispute what you had posted before.

Here's a relevant statement from the case (not the syllabus):

The sole function of the writ of habeas corpus is to have the court decide whether the Senate has jurisdiction to make the determination which it proposes.

By my reading, the court is saying that once someone is arrested by the House or Senate, the only thing they can petition the court to decide is whether or not Congress has jurisdiction in that particular arrest, not guilt or innocence.

[StarfishSaver]

73. We agree on that

[Hotler]

69. So the the headline should read......

"Congressional Democrats neutered while trying to shoot themselves in the foot."

Que Will Rodgers:
"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat.

[cwydro]

75. Yes indeed.

Exactly.

[azureblue]

70. That's what I said

earlier in this thread. Congress has that power. Quit playing nice with crooks and jail them the minute they refuse to answer or they lie.

[SunSeeker]

97. +1

[ancianita]

80. The enforcement entity isn't the SA; his job is security of House members and order. But the

DC police can be called to detain the person who swears an oath then breaks it, earning a contempt charge. Fines, time in a cell, could persuade anyone to rethink their oath and reappear with respectful answers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

[Firestorm49]

78. And time drags on.

[YOHABLO]

84. It was reported that Pelosi believed Lewandowski should have been arrested

"right then and there'' during the questioning. We're just following her lead.

[StarfishSaver]

85. That's not what she was reported as saying

The reports were that she said she'd have held him in contempt "then and there," not that he should have been arrested.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that President Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski should have been held in contempt "right then and there" when he refused to cooperate with Democrats during a hearing the day before.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/462100-pelosi-lewandowski-could-have-been-held-in-contempt-right-then-and-there.

Being held in contempt and being held in contempt and arrested are two very different things. If you're simply "following Pelosi's lead," you need to stop saying he should have been arrested on the spot (or even at all) since she has never called for that.

[YOHABLO]

86. Okay, she said ''held in contempt'' I said arrested. She did say ''then and there''

I don't know the procedure for contempt.

[StarfishSaver]

87. A contempt citation requires a vote

If the committee is going to ask a court to enforce the citation, they can vote on it and then file suit in court to enforce it. But if they want to do "inherent contempt" and not ask a court to enforce it, they have to vote it out of committee and then have the whole House vote on it before they can take any steps to enforce it through arrest or fines.

So, the committee could have voted to hold him in contempt "then and there," but they couldn't have ordered him arrested.

Also, the purpose of an arrest made under the inherent contempt authority is to bring a witness who refuses to appear to appear before the committee to testify. If the witness is already in the room testifying, there's no need to arrest him.

[SunSeeker]

89. Nadler could have had Lewandowski arrested for refusing to answer questions.

Here's an interesting suggestion:

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2019/9/17/1886118/-Despite-all-our-rage-Nadler-cannot-jail-Lewandowski-Or-can-he

One thing's for sure, what Nadler is doing isn't working; witnesses are not answering key questions.

[StarfishSaver]

91. No, actually, he couldn't have him arrested for refusing to answer questions.

But let's pretend for a moment that he could. What information did Lewandowski have that the committee didn't get out of him on Tuesday?

What specific questions did he refuse to answer that, had he answered, would provide information not already in the record and, if he were arrested and forced to testify further, what additional information would he be likely to give them?

[SunSeeker]

94. No actually, we need to stop saying we can't do things.

The point of asking those questions is to confurm the Mueller Report.

If we keep letting witnesses not respond, and suffer no consequences, we will continue getting witnesses that don't respond. Funny how that works.

[StarfishSaver]

95. They don't need Lewandowski to confirm the Mueller Report.

And as long as people keep insisting that the House do what it has no power to do, they should expect to be reminded that they're wrong, whether they like it or not.

[SunSeeker]

96. Now you're channeling the right wing talking point that Dems had no need to call Lewandowski. Oy.

I'm not wrong. We need to push the envelope and get creative. What is happening now makes us look weak. If we keep letting witnesses not answer questions, and suffer no consequences, we will keep getting witnesses who answer no questions. Funny how that works.

Nadler has inherent contempt powers. Inherent contempt was the mode employed by Congress to directly enforce contempt rulings under its own constitutional authority until criminal and civil contempt statutes were passed, and it remained in use into the twentieth century. Under inherent contempt proceedings, the House or Senate has its Sergeant-At-Arms, or deputy, take a person into custody for proceedings to be held in Congress.

It’s been used once. In 1927, when a witness refused to testify before a Senate committee, the Senate passed a resolution ordering the witness to be taken into custody by “a Senate deputy.” The deputy did so, and the witness appealed to the courts. The Supreme Court upheld the Senate’s right to do that.

“Each house of Congress has power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution,” [then-SCOTUS Justice Millis] Van Devanter said. “This has support in long practice of the houses separately, and in repeated Acts of Congress, all amounting to a practical construction of the Constitution.”

It’s patently obvious that Lewandowski did not give the testimony needed to allow the committee to exercise its lawful function to investigate. Sure he showed up. But he refused to answer. That is not functionally different than not showing up.

Nadler can try to get creative. He could have his committee pass a resolution to give him, or the majority on a vote, to order the incarceration of an uncooperative witness such as Lewandowski until they agree to cooperate, just as a court would do, under the rubric of the impeachment investigation. Same for witnesses like Don McGahn who refuse to appear at all. The committee Republicans will of course go ballistic, but it's about time we stopped living in fear of GOP reaction. It can be crafted narrowly so that it only applies to the Judiciary Committee and only then under a formal impeachment investigation.

It might not work but it's worth a try. Doing nothing to uncooperative witnesses is definitely not working.

[StarfishSaver]

98. Actually, I'm channeling the law

Which is very different than cutting and pasting out of context things you find on the internet. it may make you think you're some kind of an expert, but it's really just about as credible as the person who thinks they can instruct a surgeon how to perform a procedure because they read about it on WebMD or explain the intricacies of an Audi's internal combustion engine to a mechanic because they listen to Car Talk.

[SunSeeker]

99. Nope, you're stating your usual insults. It's not helping the Democratic cause.