Wednesday's contempt vote for Barr is not inherent contempt

[manor321]

I think some people are confused about Wednesday's vote to hold Barr in contempt of Congress. This Wednesday's vote is the same thing that Republicans did to Holder. It will get referred to the DOJ where nothing will happen.

I have no idea if the House is considering filing a civil referral to a judge to enforce the subpoenas. This would take a long time.

Inherent contempt is a completely different process. This is a trial in the House. The Sergeant at Arms of the House would first capture and bring the "suspect" to the House for a trial. The trial would be somewhat similar to the Clinton impeachment trial in the Senate. The suspect has the right to defend himself, bring witnesses, etc. It is an actual trial. Then if the House votes that the suspect is guilty, the House can imprison the person.

IMHO, all of these delays need to stop. A formal impeachment inquiry should begin. This could help expedite the process through the courts and make it more likely for judges to enforce the subpoenas.

If there is strong resistance then the House should use inherent contempt against McGahn, Lewandowski, Donaldson, etc. They are private citizens and have far less ability to prevent capture by the House.

[uponit7771]

1. Nor is it a contempt vote, its a contempt citation then majority of congress has to vote for contemp

[PoliticAverse]

2. Actually Holder was found in civil contempt (as well as criminal contempt...

that was referred to the DOJ) by the then House. A federal judge eventually rejected Congress' request to order Holder to comply in the civil case.

[EffieBlack]

3. There is nothing about an impeachment inquiry that requires a court to expedite its rulings