Democrats delay vote on Contempt

If you had the experience and knowlege you would know why an explanation is necessary. Publius, Contempt of congress is quite different from contempt of court. You may not be aware of this but contempt is NOT a criminal charge it is an ADMINISTRATIVE charge. When the charge is leveled the Judge, in this case congress has to mete out the response. There are few if any protections from a contempt charge. IT IS ANOTHER OF THOSE PESKY HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. That's right Publius I CAN SAY THIS, Congress is full of lazy drunks and they are contemptible.

I am not in contempt of Congress. Isn't that amazing. I am not even slandering congress, virtually every member of Congress has been drunk at least once, almost every one of them has shirked some duty at one time or another, and "contemptible" is an expression of opinion. I can hold it for any reason. I am an American, I don't need an excuse to hold congress in contempt.

But, it is a high crime to be in contempt of congress. FIRST YOU HAVE TO REFUSE A LAWFUL ORDER OF CONGRESS. Or lie to them or even not show up for committee meetings if you are a Congressman. So it is a High Crime. And, it is an administrative offense.

An administrative offense is usually a high crime. No jury is required to find facts in a high crime. Failure to respond to a subpoena is contempt. By the way Congress issues Congressional subpoenas. Just like Grand Juries and Courts do. So failure to answer a Congressional subpoena is contempt of Congress, not Contempt of Court. Grand Juries are agencies of the Judiciary, therefor courts.

The findings in an administrative offense are done by the offended agency. In this case Congress, and there needs to be an explanation of the required penalty, since the guilt is virtually pre determined.

Interesting...

Democratic voting tactic: If you can't win delay, criticize, condemn, and rant until you win enough support to win, or until it drops off the legislative agenda.

Karl no more explaining was needed, thought you would understand what was happening the dems leaders wont take this up either and in the end nothing will happen.

There is also that pesky "executive privelege" problem. That poses problems that the Dems don't have the time to deal with. The battle on that would be fought in the courts, taking longer than this administration will be in office.

They already won the elections (last year). They don't need to do anything until next spring.

There's a reason why democrats and independents have shown their own contempt of the cowardly democrats in congress, with recent polling. We don't call them "pussycrats" for nothing. They're spineless cowards, incapable of lowering the boom that the nation cries out to be lowered.

They NEED to be drawing "INHERENT" contempt charges, not simply contempt. A simple contempt vote would allow the white house to stonewall and block judicial review, and when the cases finally did make it to the courts, their right wing judges would likely move to dismiss the charges.

Inherent contempt charges, however, allow congress to have those charged placed under immediate incarceration, for the duration of the congressional session. There is no need for judicial review in this instance. Congress acts as the court when they make their vote, and their verdict is the result of the vote. If found "guilty" in the court of congress, the sergeant in arms is required to locate, shackle, and immediately place the guilty parties into jail, if that is what congress asks for.

Of course, since this would actually show some backbone, we can all rest comfortably assured that the democratic congress will never, ever consider it.

Clark I agree with you in part. The democratic leadership will not even stand up for what they believe is correct. I diagree with Iherent contempt. The problem is not the witnesses it is a disagreement over executive privilage. They should vote these charges so the court will decide to what extent Executive Privilage is valid here.

"The problem is not the witnesses it is a disagreement over executive privilage."

In order to allow executive privilege, the white house is required to produce documentation to justify their claim. They have failed to do so. Inherent contempt is absolutely in order.