General Discussion

HelpImSurrounded

(441 posts)

38. Well, that's a new one on me.

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 05:06 PM

Oct 2019

I assumed the Marshall's would arrest and hand over witnesses to the Capital police. So Congress lacks a "long arm"? That's a problem.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm sorry, but some apparently need to hear this in VERY simple terms: [View all] Atticus Oct 2019 OP

Agreed... N_E_1 for Tennis Oct 2019 #1

How about Obstruction of Justice tavalon Oct 2019 #2

Yes, they've got the goods on him for sure, BUT, let the clock run a bit longer. Texin Oct 2019 #20

Yep, and refusing to testify can be taken as circumstantial evidence of corrupt intent William Seger Oct 2019 #46

Does the president have the right to block someone from testifying in front of Congress? Maraya1969 Oct 2019 #53

They would testify anyway unblock Oct 2019 #3

We have had lawyers in court all morning working to get document. TidalWave46 Oct 2019 #4

Yeah, tavalon Oct 2019 #5

I had to check the Guardian after that comment, and you're right! deurbano Oct 2019 #15

Hear! Hear! n/t MFGsunny Oct 2019 #25

Dragging this out does not help Democrats, gab13by13 Oct 2019 #6

Welcome to DU orangecrush Oct 2019 #14

Am on your same wave-length as to timing. Two is minimum # of Impeachment Articles ...... MFGsunny Oct 2019 #28

It won't matter how solid evidence is to some.... getagrip_already Oct 2019 #7

Nothing but obstruction! SCVDem Oct 2019 #8

Can Congress issue bench warrant for failure to appear MyMission Oct 2019 #9

That's my question too Bradical79 Oct 2019 #18

Is checking the boxes actually worthwhile? progressoid Oct 2019 #10

Once McConnell decideds to hold the trial gab13by13 Oct 2019 #11

*IF* McConnell decideds to hold the trial progressoid Oct 2019 #13

Due process is important to punch holes the the 'witch hunt' lies. bigbrother05 Oct 2019 #16

Impeachment is required. We can't set a precedent that condones so many crimes. Garrett78 Oct 2019 #61

That's exactly the kind of enforcement the House has. Why doesn't it use it? Are they serious about ancianita Oct 2019 #12

They don't really. There is no little mini-jail anymore. That has been gone for decades. n/t pnwmom Oct 2019 #21

Then what. is. the. point. There IS no protecting and defending the Constitution from scofflaw rule ancianita Oct 2019 #22

It's building evidence for an impeachment article on obstruction. n/t pnwmom Oct 2019 #26

Evidence. Yes. Being Right. Yes. Enforcement of the Right and Rule of Law. No. Only hope, that ancianita Oct 2019 #30

Can the committees complain to the bar with a view to having obstructive lawyers...Barr, Karadeniz Oct 2019 #17

Sure. Letters can be written to the state bars that issued Barr's and WH counsel law licenses. ancianita Oct 2019 #44

yes cooling their heels in the crowbar hotel will do wonders for them vlyons Oct 2019 #19

Judges' orders and subpoenas mean nothing to them. Garrett78 Oct 2019 #23

So, Inherent Contempt seems to offer an enforcement tool not tried since 1935. U.S. Capitol Police ancianita Oct 2019 #24

Thanks! Newest Reality Oct 2019 #32

... ancianita Oct 2019 #34

Is this not one of the functions of the U.S. Marshall Service?? HelpImSurrounded Oct 2019 #27

Congress is not their arena. DU discussed this over a year ago, but I can't find the thread. ancianita Oct 2019 #35

Well, that's a new one on me. HelpImSurrounded Oct 2019 #38

I don't think it lacks one, it's more like enforcement across branches has historical lanes. ancianita Oct 2019 #41

"Do you want to be a witness or a defendant?" Hermit-The-Prog Oct 2019 #29

Where is this cell that is reserved? They got rid of the Congressional jail decades ago. pnwmom Oct 2019 #31

First, it is my understanding that the Capitol Police have cells which could be used, Atticus Oct 2019 #33

"They" consist of two parties, and the party that controls the Senate won't agree. pnwmom Oct 2019 #36

So, you understand that the Senate can govern how the House exercises and enforces its Atticus Oct 2019 #37

I have looked more than once for a solid source that explains how pnwmom Oct 2019 #39

Have you read post #24 above? It is uncontoverted that the inherent contempt power Atticus Oct 2019 #40

That's when we still had the jail. It's gone now. n/t pnwmom Oct 2019 #42

As I said in #33 above, I don't see that as a problem, but I am not an expert in this Atticus Oct 2019 #43

I trust Nancy to find a way, if there is one. And to use this power, if it still exists, pnwmom Oct 2019 #45

Didnt Ken Starr do the same? So why dont they do it now? oldsoftie Oct 2019 #47

I will say, very plainly, that if we do not succeed warmfeet Oct 2019 #48

There has been some guidance on exercise of inherent contempt LTG Oct 2019 #49

Thanks for that. nt Atticus Oct 2019 #50

If you or I were subpoenaed to testify in court doc03 Oct 2019 #51

Because Congress is not a "court" BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 #54

Do you have any ballpark estimate of just how long it will take for a court to assist in enforcing Atticus Oct 2019 #55

Oddly enough, I just got done reading an article and closing it out before I saw your post BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 #56

I very much hope you are correct in your "expectation". Thanks. nt Atticus Oct 2019 #57

You and me both!!!!!! BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 #58

What's the point of calling it a "subpoena" if they can't or won't enforce it? BlueStater Oct 2019 #59

It's an old-fashioned term for a "summons" - the term isn't only or strictly applied to courts. BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 #60

You are probably right Buckeyeblue Oct 2019 #52