ATF Project Gunrunner

Al Norris wrote:

Doesn't matter.

Congressman Issa directly challenged Holder. Issa blinked.

The letter merely confirms that this is all partisan political pandering.

---------------------------

The saddest part of the thing is that Al Norris might be all too right, which leaves the political types pandering, while the people, the vast majority of whom are honest citizens, get screwed over, and over and over.
 
Even if the House voted to issue a contempt citation, it would go nowhere because DOJ enforces them (discussed here before). It would also raise serious constitutional problems because of separation of powers. It was maybe three years ago or so where DOJ searched the office a crooked Congressman and the courts suppressed the evidence because of the separation of powers issue. My memory on this is a bit hazy but that was the gist of the problem.
 
Al Norris said:
Congressman Issa directly challenged Holder. Issa blinked.
Click to expand...

Issa may have technically had no choice. A violation of the contempt statute, 2 USC § 192, involves "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question." Even though we all believe Holder is slow-walking document production, his formal request for a bit more time might be enough to avoid being guilty of a willful default ("I was trying, but just needed more time.").
 
Even if the House voted to issue a contempt citation, it would go nowhere because DOJ enforces them (discussed here before). It would also raise serious constitutional problems because of separation of powers. It was maybe three years ago or so where DOJ searched the office a crooked Congressman and the courts suppressed the evidence because of the separation of powers issue. My memory on this is a bit hazy but that was the gist of the problem.
Click to expand...
That's true for a criminal Contempt charge. They could also go civil with it, and I believe the Sergeant at Arms of the House would enforce it.
 
That's true for a criminal Contempt charge. They could also go civil with it, and I believe the Sergeant at Arms of the House would enforce it.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about that. He is more like head Praetorian Guard.

The house would have the chief counsel (someone like Jay Sekulow) to take responsibility for the delivery of the subpoena. He would give it to a process server, unless he delighted in doing such things himself. The house can serve this without the DOJ as they can appoint independent prosecutors etc.

What they would do if they failed to comply is anyone's guess. They have not complied so far. No one in the executive seems even the slightest interest in enforcing the law and punishing those responsible for breaking it. Selling guns to drug dealers is apparently ok.
 
KyJim, you are correct. The House has no authority to appoint a prosecutor. It can o ly request that DOJ do so (as if). There is currently no special prosecutor statute on the books, and to enact another one would require approval by both houses of Congress and a presidential siggy. Can you say un-bloody likely?
 
There are three forms of contempt actions that can be taken by Congress:
  1. Inherent contempt - the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House or Senate arrests the accused, who is tried before the house of Congress that issued the contempt citation;
  2. Statutory contempt - 2 USC 192 provides that the contempt citation is forwarded to the US Attorney who has a 'duty' to present it to a grand jury, and;
  3. Civil contempt - the House or Senate files a civil lawsuit against the accused.
 
Reading the Sipsey Street Irregulars occasionally throughout this story, as a source of fresh information, I wonder if the recent rumors suggesting that Boehner may be stalling the investigation for a politically motivated fall impeachment of Holder carry any weight.
 
KyJim:

If memory serves, it doesn't always, note the following:

1. It was the FBI that searched the congressman's office, finding $90,000 or so in a refer.

2. I believe the congressman, from Louisiana, went to jail.
 
gc70:

How much is that "bit more time", and when does "slow walking" cross the line between contempt and non "contemptuous" stalling, or whatever else might be charged?
 
KyJim:

If memory serves, it doesn't always, note the following:

1. It was the FBI that searched the congressman's office, finding $90,000 or so in a refer.

2. I believe the congressman, from Louisiana, went to jail.
Click to expand...

The cash was found in his refer at home, hence the nickname "Cold Cash" Jefferson. It was FBI and what they found in the office helped send the...gentleman...to jail.

Unlike Alcee Hastings, the law is such that Jefferson cannot run for another office due to a felony conviction. Hastings, a current member of Congress, was convicted of bribery while a judge...a federal judge, IIRC, but maybe just a state jurist. He was defrocked, but ran for Congress and was elected. He might be more useful to his sponsors in Congress than on the bench, but I speculate.

Not sure about Jefferson's whereabouts these days.
 
alan said:
How much is that "bit more time", and when does "slow walking" cross the line between contempt and non "contemptuous" stalling, or whatever else might be charged?
Click to expand...

alan, I don't know the answers to your questions. But if I were charged with contempt under 2 USC 192, the first element of my defense would be that I did not "willfully" fail to produce documents.

I trust that Issa has much better legal information and counsel on the subject of Congressional contempt charges than most, or any, of us on TFL.
 
gc70 Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
How much is that "bit more time", and when does "slow walking" cross the line between contempt and non "contemptuous" stalling, or whatever else might be charged?

alan, I don't know the answers to your questions. But if I were charged with contempt under 2 USC 192, the first element of my defense would be that I did not "willfully" fail to produce documents.

I trust that Issa has much better legal information and counsel on the subject of Congressional contempt charges than most, or any, of us on TFL.

------------------------

Re your last, I would most certainly hope so, but then ...?
 
HarrySchell
Senior Member wrote, quoting yours truly,


Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 353 Quote:
KyJim:

If memory serves, it doesn't always, note the following:

1. It was the FBI that searched the congressman's office, finding $90,000 or so in a refer.

2. I believe the congressman, from Louisiana, went to jail.

-----------------------------


The cash was found in his refer at home, hence the nickname "Cold Cash" Jefferson. It was FBI and what they found in the office helped send the...gentleman...to jail.

Unlike Alcee Hastings, the law is such that Jefferson cannot run for another office due to a felony conviction. Hastings, a current member of Congress, was convicted of bribery while a judge...a federal judge, IIRC, but maybe just a state jurist. He was defrocked, but ran for Congress and was elected. He might be more useful to his sponsors in Congress than on the bench, but I speculate.

Not sure about Jefferson's whereabouts these days.
__________________

Mr. Hastings was, I believe, a federal judge. Former U.S.S. Arlen Specter was involved in his impeachment, as I recall. As for Jefferson, another poster offered the following:

mayosligo writes:

Jefferson has still not served any time of his 9 year conviction. Ridiculous.
 
I think we all watched as Emily Miller (senior editor of the opinion page at Washington Times) got her gun!

Now she has opined on Obama's new budget recently submitted to Congress:

MILLER: Obama’s fast and furious spin

President Obama is using his budget to advance an anti-gun agenda just before the election. One particularly sneaky provision buried deep within his submission to Congress Monday would, if enacted, allow the mistakes of the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal to be repeated.

MORE​
Click to expand...

Essentially, buried within the budget is language to repeal the prohibition of using founds to walk guns, that was passed in the Oct. budget, passed last year.
 
Did a little Google-Fu. As a couple have mentioned, the FBI did search Jefferson's Congressional offices (not where the cash was found) and seized documents and records. Jefferson, with support from members of Congress, asked the court to suppress the search, citing the Speech and Debate Clause and separation of power. The district court denied the motion and upheld the search. Jefferson was later convicted.

Thanks for helping me sort that out in my mind.
 
Essentially, buried within the budget is language to repeal the prohibition of using founds to walk guns, that was passed in the Oct. budget, passed last year.
Click to expand...
It would also allow scrapping of surplus M1 Garands and melting down spent military brass which is used by reputable re-loaders. But that's off-topic. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top