[imardmd1]

I’ve always wondered... what is the purpose of holding someone in contempt? Is it simply to tell the world that “He/she has been a bad boy/girl”?

If so, then Congress is in effect, USELESS.

It seems you have completely missed the point. If prosecution does not take place, it is HOLDER and OBAMA, and the whole EXECUTIVE branch that is USELESS.

Then it comes back to charging the chief executive with malfeasance.

The House (not all Congress) is now acting as judge. If you further invest it with law enforcement, you may get a precedent for the House to be exercised when the liberals regain control.

Is that what you want for the future?

Not me.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The House (not all Congress) is now acting as judge. If you further invest it with law enforcement, you may get a precedent for the House to be exercised when the liberals regain control.

Is that what you want for the future?

__________________________

So, let’s look at the title of this thread again -— It says:

Boehner: House Won’t Arrest Lois Lerner

That means the house won’t arrest Lerner because THEY CAN’T ( i.e., they are not given the constitutional power to do so )?

Then the title should be changed to: Boehner: House CAN’T Arrest Lois Lerner.

In effect, what we have is a house that can hold someone in contempt but can’t do a damn thing about it unless the executive branch acts.

So, what’s left to do?

I guess impeachment should be the next and only option left.