The Old Contemptible.
7 Likes
This is a natural procedural step to that end. Interestingly, an arrest virtually never happens and was last done in 1934.
The unanimous decision is very positive for an eventual perp walk. 
8 Likes
I’m ahead of the pack, I’ve been holding him in contempt for years.
17 Likes
I don’t think they would need to go with that right now. They have a DOJ that would plausibly enforce this if asked.
For one, you can/could always challenge a subpoena in court. Provided you have lawyers and money. That’s usually a delay tactic though.
But as far as Congress goes it’s a slightly different process. Congress has limited means to enforce subpoenas and contempt orders, and the consequences are only in force for the duration of the Congressional session. For the most part they ask/direct the DOJ to enforce them on their behalf. Under Trump the DOJ weren’t gonna do that. And the attempts to get the courts to take it on are still spooling around, cause delay tactic.
That’s why Inherent Contempt came up again under Trump, his stone walling basically meant either Inherent Contempt or not enforcing them.
A contempt charge/finding is the apprehending for failing to appear part, though. How and whether they enforce it is the question.
4 Likes
This is time sensitive and Trump et al are trying to run out the clock.
If I told a judge I wouldn’t respect her subpoena; I’d be in jail the moment I uttered those words.
19 Likes
Trixie deserves better.
8 Likes
From what I understand it that’s why Congressional orders like this are handled by the DOJ. Cause it’s faster. You refer it over and the DOJ can just git to arrestin.
Inherent Contempt is considered highly challengeable in court, and from what I remember it was largely abandoned because it was so slow and ineffective
The contempt order and any punishments laid out for it can only be in effect till January. So you can just avoid the whole thing by stirring shit over Inherent Contempt, while you’re not sitting in that jail Congress doesn’t have.
Congress is not a court.
1 Like
If it was a fast process, he’d have been in jail already.
Everything is challengeable I court. They’re going to challenge the DOJ process as well.
Yes, Congress isn’t a lower court. It’s a much higher level of government.
12 Likes
I figured next January (2023, after the midterm elections), when the next congress is sworn in. No?
8 Likes
Yeah it automatically expires at the end of the session. I just miscounted my dates there.
The problem is still there though. We have Trump cases still running for multiple years. And congress doesn’t really have the apparatus to directly hold Bannon for multiple years.
They can issue a new one at that point, but it all starts over.
3 Likes
I’m pretty sure congress can find a room with a lock on the door somewhere.
That’s a bit facetious, but I feel like Bannon is openly breaking the law, knowing that court cases can take a long time. So put Bannon in jail and let Bannon sue congress to get out, knowing that court cases can take a long time.
16 Likes
Additionally- like so many jurisdictions- they can pay to have someone held elsewhere. Like the DC prison system or Virginia’s.
Though I’d prefer to see him kept at Rikers Island.
7 Likes
Yeah it’s just better to do that by referring it to the DOJ.
The story here is not that Congress hasn’t issued a contempt order or enforced one since the 30’s. They just did it through multiple other means, rather than Inherent Contempt.
I don’t know why we’d run with the method that was abandoned 100 years ago, because it didn’t work. It only came up over Trump because a corrupt DOJ and a partisan Supreme Court meant Inherent Consent might end up being the only pathway.
That’s not the situation currently.
1 Like
And that’s a hell of a lot more likely if a Federal Prosecutor charges him with a crime.
Since criminal charges and punishments are permanent, and actually enforceable. You might actually see the guy testify, or get charged with additional crimes.
We have a DOJ that’s not mainly tasked with covering Trumps ass right now. I don’t see how that’s worse than reigniting a process that wasn’t very good at accomplishing either goal.
Congress has to refer this to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia for charges to escalate. That’s it. None of this stuff is automatic.
1 Like
Rikers isn’t a federal facility. When he’s convicted; he’ll go to Club Fed.
But before that long involved process goes on over the next five years - Congress needs to address the political problems and prevent the next insurrection and impending overthrow of democracy.
Incorrect strategy to play into their strategy of delay.
7 Likes
So what happens if I, a nobody, say “lol no” to Congress? Certainly I’d be in trouble faster than Bannon will be, right?
1 Like
Well I think if you’re subpoenaed by Congress it’s unlikely you’re a nobody.
And the answer to that is probably a no. Provided they want to compel testimony it is the same series of committee votes, followed by floor votes.
It’s a Federal crime to refuse a Congressional Subpoena. That’s a step we took to remove the need for Inherent Contempt and side step it’s problems.
That was a huge problem. It’s still an institutional problem that needs to be solved.
Can you imagine a regular court subpoena where the recipient just blows it off and then the court is like “well, that’s just to bad, guess we don’t get to hear from them” or the police tells the court, “sorry we don’t want to do anything”.
It’s all to slow is the problem. Back to the example above. It doesn’t take weeks, and extra process for the court to enforce the subpoena. They simply do it.
Right now there are people all over the country who have been subpoenaed for something and they’re all asking their lawyers right now if they can just blow it off and not respond.
If a congressional subpoena doesn’t carry the same weight and it cannot compel someone to show up, maybe we should call them invitations not subpoenas. Congress already invites people to come and speak. No sense having two formats/words if they work exactly the same.
They may show up and take the fifth, give weaselly answers, generally try to avoid supplying any meaningful information while not actually lying. But, dammit, they should have to at least show up.
2 Likes
Oh it needs fixing.
But that doesn’t mean you run with the part that needs fixing. Rather than the fix that already exists, loaded with potential conflicts as it may be.
This also doesn’t need to take weeks, after they get get their shit together for a vote anyway. They could have referred it to the DOJ same day.
Court contempt orders absolutely do take weeks. If the person in question is not physically standing in the court. Likewise subpoenas are issued, they have to be served and executed. Then the person responds, it’s only at that point that a contempt finding might kick off.
None of this is instant.
Ultimately Congress is not a legal body. And the purpose of Contempt is not to punish people, it’s to compel compliance. An escalating series of orders and consequences. Half of what they’re probably doing is trying to reassert the validity of Congressional Subpoenas, against some one who was core to undermining them in the first place.
Inherent Contempt isn’t something different from that. No one can snap their fingers and send out the Sargent at Arms. You probably need a shit ton of procedural shit just figure out a modern how, and you’d probably end up with some controversial floor votes.
While the GOP shrieks about Nancy Pelosi’s jack booted thugs. And militias get a hard on.
1 Like
The unfortunate truth is that there are far more reasonable and justified laws, rules and regulations on the books than there are teeth to enforce them.
