a reply to: Gryphon66
Schiff stating that non-compliance with subpoenas could result in Contempt charges is exactly what we have done here. Can you quote him saying
that "I will hold anyone who ignores our subpoenas in Contempt of Congress?" or any variation of that?
Possibly... but I'm not going to. Not out of disrespect to you, but because it would serve no real purpose. If Schiff meant Congress could later vote
to enforce the subpoenas, so be it. He lost all my respect and trust when he tried to "parody" Trump's call with Zelenski in front of a Congressional
hearing. I can't trust anything he says in any form after that, and I will likely always take what he says in the worst possible light. That's just
what happens when someone loses all my trust.
It's just not worth the time. What he meant in this instance will not change my opinion of him in any way.
The desire to extert power over other people is psychopathic in my opinion.
Anti-Biblical as well, but I'll not get into the derivation of that statement.
I think you will get your wish before this is over. The courts have depended on the Executive and Leglislative to come to a reasonable
compromise. That seems unlikely in this scenario. I'd be glad to have the SC rule, and if the Executive is determined NOT to be servable, then let's
get rid of 99% of the oversight function of the Congress.
I think, if it does come before the Supreme Court, that they will actually shy away from making hard and fast future precedents as much as possible.
The Supreme Court has a long history of steering clear of political debates. Any ruling will likely be couched in language to prevent precedents as
much as much as possible, but will likely uphold a requirement for a full House vote before any hard action is taken... by "hard action" I mean
jailing people, not investigation. Congress has every right, and indeed a duty, to investigate any actions they feel warrant an investigation, and
that extends to committee level investigations as well as the full House or Senate.
There may be something in that ruling that protects the minority parties' right to participate equally in the investigation, however.
The various Rules are set by every Congress since ... the beginning. The power of Contempt was passed by law in the mid 1800s, and numerous
SCOTUS decision have upheld the process.
Believe it or not, I actually support the power to declare Contempt of Congress. It is necessary to ensure that people retain the proper respect for a
Congressional inquiry. One thing that irritates me to no end is how the constant attempts to trick witnesses into saying something they don't mean to
say and to bloviate from their seats during a formal hearing have led to a few witnesses (on both sides) being downright disrespectful. We need to get
that respect back. To do so, we need members of Congress to act more mature instead of looking like little children throwing fits, but also there must
be some way to enforce respect from witnesses when (if?) that happens.
As you sort of pointed out, it seems odd to me that some folks who are more partisan in their outlook had no issue with these kinds of
activities when the Republicans did it.
Did I sort of point it out? Sorry... let me be clear. I intended to point it out, and I think it is just as disgraceful as when a Democrat does it. I
hold no allegiance to either party; I am proudly Independent and I call it like I see it. The only reason I may appear Republican is because lately
the Democrats have gone off the deep end.
Heck, the only reason I support Donald Trump is that Donald Trump supports me... most of his policies are exactly what I wanted to see happen... Syria
and the Kurds notwithstanding; he may well have made a big mistake there.
On a different day, it could easily be the Republicans who went off their rockers. Democrats hold no patent on corruption... they just happen to be
using it more today.