Vanity question: What happens if Holder is held in contempt of Congress?

[Maceman]

Any Freeper experts out there who can answer this question?

What actually are the resulting scenarios if Holder is held in contempt?

Does he have to step down?

Can he actually be arrested and jailed? I'm not aware that Congress has such an enforcement power.

So as a practical matter, will a contempt finding make any difference at all, other than in the election jockeying by both sides?

[etcb]

Considering the late date, it is likely that any citation referred by the full House to the U.S. Attorney would not be disposed of before the election. If the election goes right, it would be handled under a new administration and possibly a new U.S. Attorney.

[Boogieman]

They can send him to jail until he agrees to satisfy their demands, just like a contempt of court. Worked for the “Hollywood 10”, why would Holder be any different?

[DuncanWaring]

Because Holder is one of Holder’s People.

[Mr Rogers]

According to the NY Post:

“Then what? Technically, the citation goes to the US attorney for DC to present to a grand jury. Usually, lawyers for the White House and Congress huddle and work out some accommodation — but relations may be too poisonous for that now.

Holder also has the option to simply not prosecute himself — which would surely set off a firestorm, as would any attempt by him or the president to assert executive privilege at this late date.”

IOW, nothing happens, and the media won’t let America know it is happening.

[servo1969]

#34 Where are the Woodward and Burnstein of today???

Not sure. I think one of them may have yelled a question at Obama in the Rose Garden last Friday.

[count-your-change]

As a practical matter...nothing.

[Cheerio]

And if the MSM will push the story...Where are the Woodward and Burnstein of today???

Only works one way like a diode - Repubs are fair game, RAT never ever. AND especially if the RAT is a member of a "minority" community.

[katana]

Nice photo. A warehouse, a chair, duct tape, a can of gasoline, a knife, and a Zippo. Yep, that would work.

[Pilsner]

They can send him to jail until he agrees to satisfy their demands, just like a contempt of court.

The House of Commons had that power, when the Constitution was adopted, but the House of Representatives has not been that high handed. It asks the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring a contempt proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Of course the US Attorney works for... Attorney General Eric Holder.

[JohnBovenmyer]

For what legally CAN happen check out this. To enjoy venting about what our GOP experience has taught us likely WILL happen keep reading this thread.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Interestingly the US House also has that power, just hasn't used it in a LONG time. Check out my link in #50. I fully expect the same forces that spared Clinton from a real impeachment trial to win out here, but even though they hold just the House the GOP technically does have the power to jail Holder. The left and their MSM haven't been letting anyone know there's anything going on here; currently only the right is paying attention. It might be possible to play this out just enough to be to our advantage. Fire up Tea Party types without awakening hammocked libs. Have Issa declare contempt the modern way and Obama quash that. Then have Ron Paul play "bad cop" pushing old style contempt to Romney's Rhino cop routine. Both could play their parts in their sleep, but I predict Mr. Constitution will stay silent on the issue.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“Where are the Woodward and Burnstein of today???”

Still around, writing more about the Watergate nonsense...this is not a Republican thing, so nothing to see here. Woodward is still the @$$hole today that he was then.

[Digger]

They will threaten to take away his birthday, no desert for a week, and they will think ill of him for 3-4 hours; then they will be called racists and will drop everything, appologize and promote him to Executive Secret Senior Attorney General.

Why would anyone think different. This is a Banana Republic. Once all recognize this we can adjust within but until such time the sheeple will run on hope of improved lifestyle for the overtaxed.

[jiggyboy]

JOHN Dean my good man, not the screamer.

Word in other threads is that there are a handful of ATF whistleblowers lined up.

[muawiyah]

There’s a lockup somewhere in the Capitol Building. Things can be arranged. I wouldn’t allow him any visitors though.

[Jack Hammer]

If Holder is found in contempt of congress, he’ll hold his thumbs to his ears and call out, “Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah!”

Then he’ll give America a big raspberry.

Which, come to think of it, is what he’s been doing right along.

[jersey117]

IOW, nothing happens, and the media won’t let America know it is happening.

Watch Lou Dobbs on Fox Business Network tonight. He has been covering this diligently from the beginning. Does a piece on it every single night. This isn't some fodder for political spin. This is some serious $h*t and the republicans and Romney had better deal with it as such. No one gets a pass because of race. That is ludicruous.

[hattend]

Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia;[9] according to the law it is the “duty” of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.

The criminal offense of “contempt of Congress” sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.[10]

While the law pronounces the duty of the U.S. Attorney is to impanel a grand jury for its action on the matter, some proponents of the unitary executive theory believe that the Congress cannot properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action against the Executive Branch, asserting that the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports only to the President and that compelling the Attorney amounts to compelling the President himself. They believe that to allow Congress to force the President to take action against a subordinate following his directives would be a violation of the separation of powers and infringe on the power of the Executive branch. The legal basis for this belief, they contend, can be found in Federalist 49, in which James Madison wrote ““The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” This approach to government is commonly known as “departmentalism” or “coordinate construction”[citation needed]

Others believe that, under Article II, the principal duty of the President is to execute the law; that, under Article I, the law is what the lawmaker—e.g. Congress, in the case of statutory contempt—says it is and the Executive Branch cannot either define the meaning of the law (such powers of legislation being reserved to Congress) or interpret the law (such powers being reserved to the several Federal Courts); any attempt by the Executive to define or interpret the law would be a violation of the separation of powers; the Executive may only—and is obligated to—execute the law consistent with its definition and interpretation; and if the law specifies a duty on one of the President’s subordinates, then the President must “take care” to see that the duty specified in the law is executed. To avoid or neglect the performance of this duty would not be faithful execution of the law, and would thus be a violation of the separation of powers, which the Congress and the Courts have several options to remedy.

Senate Rules authorize the Senate to direct the Senate Legal Counsel to file a civil action against any private individual found in contempt. Upon motion by the Senate, the federal district court issues another order for a person to comply with Senate process. If the subject then refuses to comply with the Court’s order, the person may be cited for contempt of court and may incur sanctions imposed by the Court. The process has been used at least six times; but the civil procedure can only be used against Executive branch officials “in certain limited circumstances.”[citation needed]

Senate Rules authorize the Senate to direct the Senate Legal Counsel to file a civil action against any private individual found in contempt. Upon motion by the Senate, the federal district court issues another order for a person to comply with Senate process. If the subject then refuses to comply with the Court’s order, the person may be cited for contempt of court and may incur sanctions imposed by the Court. The process has been used at least six times; but the civil procedure can only be used against Executive branch officials “in certain limited circumstances.”[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

[hattend]

[edit] Partial list of those held in contempt since 1975

This section requires expansion.

Person	Subcommittee/Committee	Chamber	Ultimate Disposition
Rogers C.B. Morton (Republican), Secretary of Commerce	11 November 1975 Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce	Not considered	Morton released the material to the subcommittee.
Henry Kissinger (Republican), Secretary of State	15 November 1975 House Select Committee on Intelligence	Not considered	Citation dismissed after "substantial compliance" with subpoena.
Joseph A. Califano, Jr. (Democrat), Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare	6 August 1978 Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce	Not considered	Califano complied with the subpoena about one month after the subcommittee citation.
Charles W. Duncan, Jr. (Democrat), Secretary of Energy	29 April 1980 Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations	Not considered	Duncan supplied the material by 14 May 1980.
James B. Edwards (Republican), Secretary of Energy	23 July 1980 Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations	Not considered	Documents were delivered to Congress prior to full Committee consideration of the contempt citation.
James G. Watt (Republican), Secretary of the Interior	9 February 1982 Subcommittee of House Committee on Energy and Commerce 25 February 1982 House Committee on Energy and Commerce	Not considered	The White House delivered documents to the Rayburn House Office Building for review by Committee members for four hours, providing for no staff or photocopies.
Anne Gorsuch (Republican), Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency	2 December 1982 Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation House Committee on Public Works and Transportation	House of Representatives	After legal cases and a court dismissal of the executive Branch's suit, the parties reached an agreement to provide documents.
Rita Lavelle (Republican), EPA official	26 April 1983 House Committee on Energy and Commerce	House of Representatives	Indicted for lying to Congress; convicted; sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000
Jack Quinn (Democrat), White House Counsel David Watkins, White House Director of Administration Matthew Moore, White House aide	9 May 1996 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform	Not considered	Subpoenaed documents were provided hours before the House of Representatives was set to consider the contempt citation.
Janet Reno (Democrat), Attorney General	6 August 1998, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform	Not considered	Documents in question were revealed during the impeachment of President Clinton.
Karl Rove (Republican), former Deputy White House Chief of Staff	30 July 2008 House Committee on the Judiciary[11]	Not considered	Ongoing
Harriet Miers (Republican), Former White House Counsel Joshua Bolten (Republican), White House Chief of Staff	25 July 2007 House Committee on the Judiciary[12]	14 February 2008 House of Representatives[13]	Ongoing

[edit] Other legislatures in the U.S.

[arthurus]

Mark Levin did a good explanation of the ramifications of contempt-of-Congress last night(Wednesday). He is a lawyer who worked in he Reagan administration and knows whereof he speaks. A lot depends on the wording of the citation and whether Issa asks the Congress for power to hire an outside lawyer and proceed with litigation against Holder.

Actually, I expect things will not go as expected because this president does not feel bound by the Constitution or by laws. He may simply refuse to co-operate in any proceedings at all.

I don't know what mechanism is in place that can force him. The Executive seems to hold all the enforcement cards. A Constitutional face off with this president could have much more serious ramifications than with any previous president.