Rep. Darrell Issa's agenda in 2014: IRS, Benghazi and Fast and Furious

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) in 2014 will pursue the IRS scandal, the deadly Benghazi attack and the botched Fast and Furious operation in what will likely be his last year as the House GOP's chief investigator.

Issa sounded a cautionary note that the investigations might not conclude while he has the gavel. “The administration wraps up investigations. We are done when we are done … there shouldn’t be any sort of effort to load in or unload" before his term limit of six years as the top Republican on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee ends in December.

Rep. John Mica (Fla.), the GOP lawmaker who is the favorite to replace Issa as chairman, said he “supports Mr. Issa and our investigative efforts during the balance of his term. He’s done an excellent job. We have had unprecedented stonewalling. [The administration has been] masters at keeping the committee and Congress at bay.”

Mica told The Hill that he hopes to “have a shot at” the gavel if he gets reelected, and if his party continues to control the House.

A key Republican on the committee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), said that “there’s a lot more to come” on Benghazi, as well as “investigations from healthcare to the IRS to Fast and Furious.”

Ideally, Issa would like to conclude one of the first high-profile investigations launched shortly after he became chairman in 2011: the gunrunning “Fast and Furious” case.

“I'd like to have Fast and Furious be a closed case,” Issa said, pointing out that the courts are still reviewing access-to-documents disputes between Republicans and the administration.

Sorry, but after almost five years of “attacks from the flanks” of the Left, he has yet to inflict any casualties whatsoever. The “forces provided by the GOP” are nothing more than a terracotta army. I’ve all but concluded that the Government Oversight and Reform Committee exists for nothing more than political theater and the Charlie Browns among us persist in thinking, “They’ve got ‘em now!” every time Issa calls a hearing. Regretfully, some of us even believe the “leaks” that suggest “serious investigations” continue behind the scenes.

The strategy of the Republican Elites/Progressives Light (but not very) is “Make them think we’re really serious this time”. The time and place of Issa’s choosing (and that of his handlers) is never and nowhere. Roger Clemens is prosecuted for lying to Congress while Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, et al, march on unimpeded. Makes me want to vomit...

Fair enough. Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full Committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the Chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.

Under the principle of Inherent Contempt, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation).

Four separate Supreme Court decisions have upheld the power of Congress to execute arrests in the case of Inherent Contempt. (Admittedly, the courts have characterized such an action as “unseemly”, but the power to do so remains.) While, unlike the President, I am not a Constitutional law professor (forgive my snarkiness; it is not directed at you), I would exercise that authority or at least appear to do so.

My initial step would be to leak a rumor that I was seriously considering the issuance of an arrest warrant for the attorney general attendant to the Contempt of Congress citation. Even a rumor of such action could not be ignored - even by the compliant media. The media would characterize it as a “Constitutional Crisis” and a “showdown” between the House and the administration. I would submit that, under the circumstances, that would not be a bad thing. It would force the administration to take a stand and marshall its forces, while the House (minus Boehner, Cantor and a few others) would do likewise.

After allowing the storm clouds to build for a few (two or three) days, I would call a press conference and cite, in general terms, the administration’s usurpations of its Constitutional authority, review the details of the attorney general’s contempt citation, conclude with a statement that leaves everyone with the distinct impression that I am very serious and withdraw without taking questions.

If I had not done so already, I would begin the process of preparing a warrant for the attorney general’s arrest and leak that fact as well. I would keep the administration and DOJ off balance by progressively leaking comments about the seriousness of such an action and reiterate that it is warranted, given the circumstances and progressively leak details already in the public domain.

Ultimately, if the administration and DOJ refused to comply with subpoenas and the attorney general refused to produce relevant documents, I would again call a press conference and announce that the warrant was being executed.

Is it an extreme measure? Absolutely! Is it warranted and necessary to check the administration’s abuses of power? Some would argue no, but I would vehemently disagree.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.