Issa: FBI impeding inquiry into IRS targeting of conservative groups

The Washington Times ^ | 12/03/13 | Stephen Dinan

[Chickensoup]

I am not sure what people here expect him to do. There certainly is not enough support or outrage to move ahead.

Our country is being taken over by thugs and we change the channel.

[Chickensoup]

You tell me how a politican in Hitler’s Germany prior to the war could have investigated the SS and remained alive?

Same difference.

And as much indifference and fear as today.

[Chickensoup]

I keep dreaming that republicans learn that they are in a war to the death and not some silly gentlemen’s club.

_______________

This is not a Republican issue, this is a citizen issue. And I see no massive citizen protests.

[Chickensoup]

I would no more trust the FBI with anything than I would the DNC. They are well on their way to becoming a STASI, NKVD or Gestapo cult.

____________

So what are people doing about it?

[okie01]

I'll stipulate that the House has the power to impose a Contempt of Congress charge and that the Sergeant at Arms of the House has the power to arrest a transgressor.

But where was Mr. McCracken located when Mr. Jurney arrested him? That doesn't seem to be specified.

At any rate, this case is dated 1935, when there actually was a detention facility in the capitol which the Sergeant at Arms could use to lodge detainees. The jail is still there -- but is no longer capable of handling overnight "guests".

Consequently, the Congress must now rely on the DOJ to provide detention facilities. And I believe they must also rely on the DOJ to enforce their arrests away from Capitol Hill. See McDougal, Susan of Whitewater fame for a demonstration.

[sergeantdave]

Excellent research, Ray76.

Happy that you’re on our team, buddy.

[Ray76]

Well Holder certainly isn’t going to arrest himself!

Here’s a 2007 article from “the other side of the aisle” regarding a subpoena of Condoleezza Rice.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/04/house_arrest.html

That article refers to Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html

[Ray76]

Despite voting to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress, there’s little House Republicans can do in the short term to compel him to turn over documents — unless it wanted to revisit a long-dormant power and arrest him.

The thought is shocking, and conjures up a Hollywood-ready standoff scene between House police and the FBI agents who protect the attorney general. It’s a dramatic and unlikely possibility not least because Congress doesn’t even have a jail any longer. But in theory it could happen.

Republicans say it’s not even under consideration, with House Speaker John A. Boehner’s spokesman flatly ruling it out.

But the process, known as inherent contempt, is well-established by precedent, has been confirmed by multiple Supreme Court rulings, and is available to any Congress willing to force such a confrontation.

“The House is scared to death to use the inherent contempt power,” said Mort Rosenberg, a fellow at the Constitution Project...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/house-could-arrest-holder-with-inherent-contempt-p/

"Inherent contempt, is well-established by precedent, has been confirmed by multiple Supreme Court rulings, and is available to any Congress willing to force such a confrontation" - in other words, count on a dog & pony show from the Vichy Republicans

[sergeantdave]

I really think that if you and I were asked what 2 + 2 equals, that the questioner would get two different answers.

Semper fi, buddy, and best wishes to you and yours.

[okie01]

Generally, I agree with what you're saying (implying even). But I don't know quite what you would have the House do, given that the Sgt at Arm's arrest powers don't extend beyond the curb at Capitol Hill and, should Holder ever return there, they have no place to detain him should he be arrested.

To my recollection, Holder has not re-appeared on Capitol Hill, even to testify before the Senate, since he has been charged with Contempt of Congress.

The problem is that what this administration is doing is simply unprecedented. Nobody ever anticipated an administration that would behave in such a lawless fashion. As a consequence, there is no established approach toward addressing the problem.

Nonetheless, one would like to think that a serious-minded patriotic Republican leadership would at least make threatening noises...

[Ray76]

"the Sgt at Arm's arrest powers don't extend beyond the curb at Capitol Hill"

I don't see where you get this idea. Did you read the Slate article?

In 1832, Sam Houston (that Sam Houston), then a private citizen, assaulted Ohio Rep. William Stanbery as Stanbery was walking home in Washington, D.C. According to Stanbery, Houston was indignant over something that Stanbery had said in a floor debate. Stanbery reported the assault to the House, which ordered its sergeant-at-arms to "take in custody, wherever to be found, the body of Samuel Houston; and the same in his custody to keep, subject to the further order and direction of this House." Houston was arrested and brought before the House, where he was represented by Francis Scott Key (that Francis Scott Key). After a monthlong trial, he was reprimanded and sent on his way.

- - emphasis added

[okie01]

In 1832,

Is it still true today, though? That has been the question from the outset, has it not?

I doubt that either of us knows for sure. I'm relying on the testimony of another FReeper whose source was in the Sgt at Arms employ and ran the "jail" in the basement of the Capitol building.

Perhaps he misunderstood. I can't say for sure.

[firebrand]

The people took him down also. At that time you could send a telegram to your congressman for one dollar. A flood of telegrams was engulfing the House, all with one word: Impeach!

[Ray76]

>> Is it still true today?

Why wouldn’t it be?

According to the case, historical resource, and articles I provided, Congress has the power to enforce it’s subpoenas. If Congress can not compel obedience to its subpoena, then its subpoena is meaningless.

The House of Representatives, under Republican leadership, has found Holder in Contempt for failure to obey their subpoena. They have thus far done nothing. They have allowed subpoenas to be ignored with impunity.

The House of Representatives, under Republican leadership, has allowed Obama to ignore Laws enacted by Congress.

The House of Representatives, under Republican leadership, has allowed Obama to encourage others to violate Laws.

The House has the authority and power to enforce its subpoena, and to hold a lawless Executive accountable. The House, under Republican leadership, will not assert its just powers or live up to their Duty.

Meanwhile, The Senate, under Democrat leadership, has overturned rule which has been in place since the First Congress under our Constitution. This was done in a manner which renders any rule to be majority rule, in other words no rule.

Republicans lose because they are sniveling cowards. Exhibit A: John Boehner

The country is at stake. They either get the job done now or get out of the way.

[Ray76]

The Washington Times article I linked to references this interesting article published July 2009 covering Congressional investigations, subpoena authority and enforcement.

http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/

[okie01]

Why wouldn’t it be?

Because Congress:

1. No longer has the capability. Without the facilities or the staff to enforce its subpoena power, Congress willingly ceded these responsibilities to the DOJ (who, if I'm not mistaken, also serves their subpoenae). Which makes perfectly good sense

2. No longer has the will. On that we can agree.

I remain unconvinced on the breadth of the Sgt at Arms' authority. It would make perfect financial sense for Congress to cede the enforcement authority (outside the local realm) and detention responsibility to the DOJ. At least so long as there was mutual respect for the prerogatives of the co-equal branches of government.

Here are three links to descriptions of the Sergeant-at-Arms Office and its duties and responsibilities -- two from dot gov, one from Wikipedia.

Sergeant-at-Arms Office

Sergeant-at-Arms, History

Sergeant-at-Arms, Duties

In none of these is the function of arresting and detaining anybody accused of a crime against the Congress so much as mentioned.

At one time, arrest and detention of such transgressors was clearly a responsibility of the Sergeant-at-Arms. These links suggest that may no longer be the case.

[GeronL]

Issa is a joke, nothing comes of his hearings

[Ray76]

>> Sgt at Arm’s arrest powers don’t extend beyond the curb at Capitol Hill

Sam Houston’s assault of William Stanbery occurred on Pennsylvania Ave, not within the Capitol.

[okie01]

Sam Houston’s assault of William Stanbery occurred on Pennsylvania Ave, not within the Capitol.

The discussion isn't about how far the Sgt-at-Arms' authority extended in 1832. It's how far do they extend today?

[Ray76]

I don’t know where the arrest of Houston took place.

Since the assault was not within the Capitol there was not a spontaneous arrest, as in the arrest of Rep. Henry Edmundson (D-VA) who was arrested on the floor of the House. http://books.google.com/books?id=bQ0WOeABRrkC&pg=PA486&lpg=PA486&source=bl&ots=BzN4qJ4FrS&sig=sWG21pKZ-0C1o9zPVsMMWhCXSyQ&hl=en&ei=f1ywSc_qNpL2MMeEpMUE&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false

Stanberry wrote to the speaker of the House, claiming a breach of privilege. Houston was arrested and brought to the bar of the House. http://books.google.com/books?id=mpUEAAAAYAAJ&dq=GEORGE%20%20BRYAN%20%20sam%20houston&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q&f=false

The House ordered its sergeant-at-arms to “take in custody, wherever to be found, the body of Samuel Houston”.

“Wherever to be found” is unambiguous.

There has been no Amendment modifying or removing the authority of either house of Congress to enforce its subpoenas. Nor has any statute done so or could do so.