Gowdy: 'Nobody cares what Congress does ... The House doesn't matter anymore'

[Kyle]

Former congressman Trey Gowdy called House Democrats "feckless and irrelevant" Wednesday in response to a vote to hold Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress.

"Nobody cares what Congress does. What we saw yesterday -- they can't even enforce their own House rules against their own members.

"It'd be nice to explain it in front of a fair jury that has not already made up its mind. But when 60 Democrats vote to impeach you before [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller has issued a single consonant or vowel in his report, that ain't a fair jury."

Trey Gowdy: 'Nobody cares what Congress does ... The House doesn't matter anymore'

Former congressman Trey Gowdy called House Democrats "feckless and irrelevant" Wednesday in response to a vote to hold Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress.

www.foxnews.com

 

[This_person]

 

[transporter]

So what you two morons and Mr. Gowdy are saying is that it is ok to ignore a properly issued subpoena. They didn't fight it in court, they just ignored it.

I want to make sure you, and the rest of the crew, will understand that.

I also want to make sure you understand this for the next time you get your panties in a bunch about "the rule of law".

I also want to make sure you understand this for the next time you, or any of the crew, start spouting off about how Trump is "making America great again" or "draining the swamp".

 

[Kyle]

So what you two morons and Mr. Gowdy are saying is that it is ok to ignore a properly issued subpoena.

The "Eric Holder" precedent.

Thank you Obama.

 

[vraiblonde]

I love Trey Gowdy. I wish he hadn't bailed, but you certainly can't blame him. Nobody in their right mind would want to be involved in politics.

 

[This_person]

I love Trey Gowdy. I wish he hadn't bailed, but you certainly can't blame him. Nobody in their right mind would want to be involved in politics.

He would have been at least as good a choice for AG as Barr, IMHO.

 

[This_person]

So what you two morons and Mr. Gowdy are saying is that it is ok to ignore a properly issued subpoena. They didn't fight it in court, they just ignored it.

Nope. They're saying Congress has turned itself irrelevant and feckless (that means "ineffective; incompetent; futile; having no sense of responsibility; indifferent; lazy").

Congress abdicates the bulk of its Constitutionally-driven authority over the executive, then complains when the executive does things it doesn't like.

It has arbitrary and random standards based on who is speaking an opinion instead of the validity or lack thereof of the opinion.

It has usurped a great deal of liberty from we, the people, in direct violation of the 10th amendment.

This is a critique of Congress, not Democrats (specifically) or Republicans (specifically).

Try using that hat-stand on your shoulders for evaluation, not reflexive hate-filled response.

 

[PsyOps]

I also want to make sure you understand this for the next time you get your panties in a bunch about "the rule of law".

Rule of law

Using a private server to handle highly classified information.
Destroying evidence (smashing phones with hammers)
Destroying evidence (bleach bitting hard drives)
^ Obstruction of justice ^
Selling stockpiles of automatic weapons to drug kings
Open borders
Launching a two year investigation into the president on a concocted accusation of 'collution' and 'obstruction of justice'

You libs don't give a damn about 'rule of law' unless it suits your corrupt purposes.

 

[This_person]

Rule of law

Using a private server to handle highly classified information.
Selling stockpiles of automatic weapons to drug kings
Open borders
Launching a two year investigation into the president on a concocted accusation of 'collution' and 'obstruction of justice'

You libs don't give a damn about 'rule of law' unless it suits your corrupt purposes.

You have to admit, though, that the open derision with which Tranny speaks of "rule of law" implies a pretty strong desire for rule by something else - man, maybe?

 

[Hijinx]

Only under the craziest nightmare in the world could the Democrats expect to hold their majority in the House in 2020.

I am not saying it cannot happen, it appears that half of the voter in this country are suffering from TDS
a dysfunction of the brain where they listen to the psychotic ramblings of a raving lunacy called the media.

What have they done for the last 2 years.?
A circle jerk of condemning an elected president while invaders are rolling into our country like it's a free circus.

 

[SamSpade]

They voted on a pointless contempt resolution which has no chance of advancing to anyone else over an issue - the census citizenship question - which essentially no longer exists.

YEAH - pointless.

I implore everyone on here to look up what the 116th Congress has managed to accomplish in the last six months.
In their defense, at least they didn't manufacture some list of things they'd do in the first 100 days, because they've done damned near nothing but throw tantrums.

 

[Yooper]

"What we saw yesterday -- they can't even enforce their own House rules against their own members."

That was very disappointing.

...House Democrats "feckless and irrelevant" Wednesday in response to a vote to hold Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress.

So what you two morons and Mr. Gowdy are saying is that it is ok to ignore a properly issued subpoena. They didn't fight it in court, they just ignored it.

I want to make sure you, and the rest of the crew, will understand that.

I also want to make sure you understand this for the next time you get your panties in a bunch about "the rule of law".

I also want to make sure you understand this for the next time you, or any of the crew, start spouting off about how Trump is "making America great again" or "draining the swamp".

In response, I will reiterate what I've said before; the idea that it is settled law that it is not "ok to ignore a properly issued subpoena" is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. This "conflict" remains a long-term issue between branches of government. Obama was not the first to resist; so have numerous presidents before him.

Here's a useful link (a long article, but one that provides useful context; speaking of Obama, "Fast & Furious" is mentioned as an example):

Congressional Subpoena Power and Executive Privilege: The Coming Showdown Between the Branches

With the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives sporting an aggressive oversight agenda on national security and foreign policy issues, it’s only

www.lawfareblog.com

One snip:

But the precise contours of any executive privilege are contested, and the executive branch, the courts and Congress tend to take divergent positions that favor their respective constitutional roles.

And one more:

So while it is settled that the federal courts have jurisdiction to resolve a conflict over a claim of executive privilege in the context of enforcement of a congressional subpoena, there isn’t much actual case law to suggest exactly how assertions of executive privilege by the president may ultimately be decided by a court. In addition, the good-faith accommodation requirement typically has the effect of lengthening the amount of time it takes for a civil enforcement action by Congress to vindicate its subpoena power, and in many instances may obviate the practical usefulness of a court decision in a given controversy.

And one more:

Finally, a word about Congress’s arrest powers. The criminal contempt statute permits Congress to certify a contempt citation to the executive branch for the criminal prosecution of the contemnor. But Congress will have a practical problem using this mechanism if the president does not agree with the action. Administrations of both political persuasions have decided that U.S. attorneys are not required to refer congressional contempt charges to a grand jury or prosecute an executive branch official who carries out the president’s instruction to invoke the president’s claim of executive privilege before a committee.

That leaves Congress’s inherent contempt power, which means relying on the legislature’s own constitutional authority to detain and jail a contemnor until the individual complies with congressional demands. What does that actually look like? It’s not very pretty—which is why the inherent contempt process has not been used by either body since 1935, when a Herbert Hoover administration official was held briefly in the Willard Hotel.

And here's the conclusion:

Disputes between Congress and the president over the scope of executive privilege are better understood as political battles with legal underpinnings—not as pure legal battles to be decided in court. It remains to be seen how effective Congress’s constitutional tools will be, but it is a pretty safe bet that using these tools effectively will require time, energy and commitment. In short, each side will have to consider what it can reasonably get away with in the current political environment—even as each side uses the processes associated with the interbranch push-and-pull of executive privilege to shape that environment.

emphasis mine

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[GURPS]

Hmm

No Convening Legal Authority