Attorney General Merrick Garland Found in Contempt of Congress

[JAL]

Again, I’m sure you’re right as far as it goes, but if Garland says “hell no, I won’t go,” the FBI/marshals/DHS police will fall inline and threaten to arrest any Capitol cops that show up. I don’t see the Capitol Police going to war over this. Not the guys who helped Fubar the 6 Jan events, and “investigate“ those Pakistani computer guys -remember them? Frankly, I expect they are hoping to change bosses in November.

There will be a flurry of legal challenges in the DC Courts and onto the Supreme Court about whether Congress really has the powers that the Constitution says it does, and everyone will just sit on their hands while it plays out, hoping to run out the clock to the election. it will be irrelevant that it’s plainly laid out in constitution, law, and history.

One thing the Democrats have been really good at entrenching loyalists throughout the supposedly non-partisan civil service, and I’m doubly sure of this applies to the capitol police.

I certainly hope I am wrong.

McGrain v. Daugherty, SCOTUS, 1927
This is the longstanding landmark case regarding Inherent Contempt of Congress. It was a challenge to Mally Daugherty's contempt conviction and arrest, which occurred when he failed to appear before a Senate committee investigating the failure of his brother, Attorney General Harry Daugherty, to investigate the perpetrators of the infamous (President Warren G. Harding) Teapot Dome Scandal. The Court upheld his conviction. In the case, the Supreme Court held for the first time that under the Constitution, Congress has the power to compel witnesses to appear and provide testimony, and the inherent power to try those who refuse for Criminal Contempt, and sentence them to incarceration/fines. It had been used before but never challenged to this extent in the past. This power is a parallel to the powers courts at all levels have to issue contempt citations and punish those they find in contempt of their courts. A prior 1860 SCOTUS Decision was about whether or not a House or Senate Sergeant at Arms could use a Deputy to effect the arrest. There were no House/Senate Rules authorizing that at the time. Those were put into place well before this case arose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGrain_v._Daugherty

Complete text of decision for the geeks (language and format used is contemporary to 1927):
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/100996/mcgrain-v-daugherty/

 

[Alamo]

I guess we’re talking past each other.

I agree that you have all the written documentation that the power exists.

I’m just holding that a) if Garland refuses to voluntarily submit, then b) none of the agencies whose job it is to physically compel his compliance will do so.

 

[JAL]

I guess we’re talking past each other.

I agree that you have all the written documentation that the power exists.

I’m just holding that a) if Garland refuses to voluntarily submit, then b) none of the agencies whose job it is to physically compel his compliance will do so.

They have no choice. They can be compelled to comply or be arrested themselves for insubordination and failure to follow lawful orders. Garland has no power whatsoever to stop them. In the 1927 case, Senate Sergeant at Arms Deputies went to Ohio and physically took Daugherty into custody, jailing him for transport to the Senate Bar. When SCOTUS weighed in on it, reversing the District Court's Decision in Ohio, they did that.

A court of jurisdiction backing the Sergeant at Arms and his deputies would issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering them to perform as ordered, or face criminal contempt of the said court issuing it. That in addition to the House finding those refusing to do as ordered also in Inherent Contempt of Congress.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

They can be compelled to comply

But by whom? What if the compeller chooses not to compel them to comply? I get that they have the power if they choose to use it, but will they?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

the compeller chooses not to compel them to comply

This phrase would be a good candidate for "Say this 3 times, fast!" I'm glad I could just type it out.

 

[JAL]

But by whom? What if the compeller chooses not to compel them to comply? I get that they have the power if they choose to use it, but will they?

Have you ever seen what happens when someone blatantly refuses to obey a court order? I have. It's not pretty. The judge is GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF in that regard and can impose damn near any punishment he sees fit, with complete impunity. Courts have their own bailiffs that report to the judge, and act on the orders of their judge. If they refuse, they themselves are in Criminal Contempt.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Have you ever seen what happens when someone blatantly refuses to obey a court order? I have. It's not pretty. The judge is GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF in that regard and can impose damn near any punishment he sees fit, with complete impunity. Courts have their own bailiffs that report to the judge, and act on the orders of their judge. If they refuse, they themselves are in Criminal Contempt.

I'm not making myself clear. No worries! That's on me. You know that saying about having a battle of wits with an unarmed man? I am that unarmed man.

 

[firecadet613]

But by whom? What if the compeller chooses not to compel them to comply? I get that they have the power if they choose to use it, but will they?

Exactly this. Nothing will come of this, no one will arrest Garland, court order, direct order, or the law. They don't care.

 

[Shadow01]

Garland doesn't command or control the Capitol Police. Their Command, Control and Operations are under the Capitol Police Board. In other words, Garland and his minions cannot issue orders to them. They don't report to him or any of his Minions.

Capitol Police Board:

• William McFarland, U.S. House of Representatives Sergeant at Arms (Chair)
• Karen H. Gibson, United States Senate Sergeant at Arms (Member)
• Joseph DiPietro, Acting Architect of the Capitol (Member)
• J. Thomas Manger, Chief of Police (Ex-Officio Member)

If the U.S. House Sergeant at Arms with the backing of the House Speaker orders them to assist in arresting and taking Garland into custody, they assist him in arresting Garland and taking them into custody.

We need to know the political party affiliation of the board members for proper context.

 

[Ingomike]

Exactly this. Nothing will come of this, no one will arrest Garland, court order, direct order, or the law. They don't care.

I now have come to believe that the framers created this system of checks and balances, not for the system to punish, but for the people to punish. The framers gave congress the power to investigate, they have, the people know and now need to act, but not the power to punish.

The turning point, as I see it, was Clinton and his crap, but the people decided not to punish him. They will get by with it until such time as the people demand it be punished. No one else is going to do it for us.

In this case it is not the republicans failing to act, they did what the founders authorized them to do now it is up to us…

 

[JAL]

We need to know the political party affiliation of the board members for proper context.

The principal member is the House Sergeant at Arms. He's not a Congressman. He was nominated for the position by the House Speaker and appointed to the position by House Resolution. The current one is William McFarland who has been a career law enforcement and security official for decades, starting in the NSA and then transferring to the Capitol Police and eventually serving as a standing committee Security Officer. Senate Sergeant at Arms is a retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. (3 stars), likewise not an elected Senator. The House Sergeant at Arms has a mace, usually in a stand near the dais, and if called upon to restore order, will retrieve it as a symbol of their law enforcement authority to enforce orderly conduct among members.

Many think they are a Congressman and Senator. They're not. While the most visible of their duties are ceremonial, especially after the House Doorkeeper position was abolished, they entail considerable administrative duties associated with security of the Capitol, especially of their respective chambers and their elected members. As a footnote, the House Doorkeeper was mostly ceremonial, formally announcing the arrival of dignitaries who are not members, such as the President, Supreme Court Justices, etc.

Hope this sheds some light on the two key people on the Capitol Police Board.

Another member, Architect of the Capitol, is appointed by the President for a 10 year term, with Senate confirmation. It's not considered a political position as the President is given a list of three candidates for the position by a combined committee of House and Senate majority and minority leaders. President has to select which of the three to appoint after which Senate confirms it. This makes the Architect of the Capitol an Officer of the United States, swearing an Article VI Oath and receiving a Commission from the President. The Architect oversees Capitol complex functional operation, including security aspects, with over 2000 employees. The Architect of the Capitol has been featured as a main character in Dan Brown's "Robert Langdon" novel, The Lost Symbol from which a short TV series of the same name was made (aired on Peacock).

 

[Shadow01]

The principal member is the House Sergeant at Arms. He's not a Congressman. He was nominated for the position by the House Speaker and appointed to the position by House Resolution. The current one is William McFarland who has been a career law enforcement and security official for decades, starting in the NSA and then transferring to the Capitol Police and eventually serving as a standing committee Security Officer. Senate Sergeant at Arms is a retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. (3 stars), likewise not an elected Senator. The Sergeant at Arms has a mace, usually in a stand near the dais, and if called upon to restore order, will retrieve it as a symbol of their law enforcement authority to enforce orderly conduct among members.

Many think they are a Congressman and Senator. They're not. While the most visible of their duties are ceremonial, especially after the House Doorkeeper position was abolished, they entail considerable administrative duties associated with security of the Capitol, especially of their respective chambers and their elected members. As a footnote, the House Doorkeeper was mostly ceremonial, formally announcing the arrival of dignitaries who are not members, such as the President, Supreme Court Justices, etc.

Hope this sheds some light on the two key people on the Capitol Police Board.

Another member, Architect of the Capitol, is appointed by the President for a 10 year term, with Senate confirmation. It's not considered a political position as the President is given a list of three candidates for the position by a combined committee of House and Senate majority and minority leaders. President has to select which of the three to appoint after which Senate confirms it. This makes the Architect of the Capitol an Officer of the United States, swearing an Article VI Oath and receiving a Commission from the President. The Architect oversees Capitol complex functional operation, including security aspects, with over 2000 employees. The Architect of the Capitol has been featured as a main character in Dan Brown's "Robert Langdon" novel, The Lost Symbol from which a short TV series of the same name was made (aired on Peacock).

Do they vote in our elections? If so, they have a bias and if it is toward the left, I would not trust them in today’s environment. Basically if you lean left, you are a crook.

 

[bobzilla]

ok, who else wants to see the Mace in use here?

 

[bobzilla]

Do they vote in our elections? If so, they have a bias and if it is toward the left, I would not trust them in today’s environment. Basically if you lean left, you are a crook.

Absolutes are usually not absolute no matter how many times you shout them out.

 

[JAL]

ok, who else wants to see the Mace in use here?

The House Mace sits on the Speaker's Dias, although it's moved back out of view during Joint Session ceremonies with both Speaker and VP seated there. It's not small! Photo was taken during a restoration made of its silver and bundle of ebony staves in 2006. By House Rules, its presence is required to convene the House. The original was destroyed in the Capitol Fire during the War of 1812. This is the one that replaced it.

 

[Leadeye]

The House Mace sits on the Speaker's Dias, although it's moved back out of view during Joint Session ceremonies with both Speaker and VP seated there. It's not small! Photo was taken during a restoration made of its silver and bundle of ebony staves in 2006. By House Rules, its presence is required to convene the House. The original was destroyed in the Capitol Fire during the War of 1812. This is the one that replaced it.

Reminds me of the old pictures of Roman Lictors.

 

[mmpsteve]

The House Mace sits on the Speaker's Dias, although it's moved back out of view during Joint Session ceremonies with both Speaker and VP seated there. It's not small! Photo was taken during a restoration made of its silver and bundle of ebony staves in 2006. By House Rules, its presence is required to convene the House. The original was destroyed in the Capitol Fire during the War of 1812. This is the one that replaced it.

Would make a fine pike, to be prominently displayed in-chamber with the appropriate accoutrement sitting on top, to remind members of the perils of treachery. I believe Garland would make a superb charter-member for "The Official Pike Mace".

.

 

[JAL]

Reminds me of the old pictures of Roman Lictors.

View attachment 359178

Much of our Government architecture and symbols are patterned after those used during the Roman Republic -- with a healthy dose of Greek stuff. The "Swagger Stick" I had in my office and occasionally carried during my military career was a similar symbol of authority, even if not a bound bundle of staves. Has a brass head with the Great Seal of the U.S. on the end showing signs of wear (also used as the U.S. Army button and cap device), with a brass ferule at the narrow end. It's about 21" long.




As a footnote, the Lictor was a disciplinarian for the Roman official he protected in addition to bodyguard. He carried an axe in the bundle (rarely when in Rome proper). The axe was a real one. It could be and sometimes was used for immediate executions when ordered by the official he accompanied.

 

[smokingman]

Congress does not matter to this administration.

DOJ Won’t Pursue Criminal Contempt Charges Against Garland | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[JAL]

Congress does not matter to this administration.

DOJ Won’t Pursue Criminal Contempt Charges Against Garland | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

I won't belabor this more here . . . The House has the Nuke Option with an Inherent Contempt Resolution empowering the House Sergeant at Arms (a law enforcement officer that works for the House sand reports directly to the House Speaker) with his deputies to arrest Garland, and frog march him back to the House "bar" to stand trial for contempt before the assembled House itself. The House can impose both incarceration and a fine with near impunity. It's been challenged in the past and SCOTUS Decisions have upheld this Inherent Power without question.

[with corrections]
It was used in 1927 with a challenge reaching SCOTUS during the Warren G. Harding Teapot Dome scandal. A scalawag related to it and one of the perps refused to comply with a Senate subpoena for documents and to testify before the Senate. SCOTUS decided in favor of the Senate making it abundantly clear they have the Inherent Power to enforce subpoenas and directly punish those in contempt of the Senate (or House) with their own trials -- imprisoning and fining the scofflaws. The Senate Sergeant at Arms with Deputies went to Ohio, seized the scalawag and dragged him back to Wash. D.C. in shackles, whereupon he was presented at the Senate bar for a trial held by the Senate. I believe at that point he decided it was in his best interest to provide the bank records and testify. That decision also ruled the Sergeant at Arms could use his deputies to aid in apprehension.

It's the same very nearly unlimited power a judge has in his courtroom regarding criminal contempt -- with the inherent power to imprison someone forever if he so chooses and issue massive fines nobody could conceivably pay. House and Senate both have the same Inherent Power. The Sergeants at Arms and their deputies do NOT work for DOJ or any three letter federal agency. They and their deputies are law enforcement that work directly for the House (Speaker) and Senate (Pres. Pro Tem), reporting directly to them.

(Bottom Line: do not EVER challenge a judge who threatens a contempt citation; there is very nearly zero recourse or remedy. Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio found this out the "hard way" after being give numerous opportunities to comply with the Federal Judge's Orders.)