Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
Mon Oct 4, 2021, 11:29 PM Oct 2021

In case you missed it (I did): Jan. 6 panel will issue 'criminal referrals' for subpoena defiers

The committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection and former President Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election will issue “criminal referrals” to witnesses who refuse to obey subpoena deadlines, Chair Bennie Thompson said Friday.

“The committee will probably for those who don’t agree to come in voluntarily, we’ll do criminal referrals and let that process work out,” Thompson told reporters at the Capitol.

In a brief interview, he said the panel had on Friday begun interviewing people who volunteered to cooperate with the investigation. Additional subpoenas would be coming out shortly, he said.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/01/bennie-thompson-jan-6-panel-subpoena-514940


By "criminal referrals" he means that the committee will cite the recalcitrant witness(es) for Contempt of Congress and refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for criminal prosecution.

25 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In case you missed it (I did): Jan. 6 panel will issue 'criminal referrals' for subpoena defiers (Original Post) StarfishSaver Oct 2021 OP
In before... AZSkiffyGeek Oct 2021 #1
Too late. "The Garland won't do anything" crowd, as you say Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2021 #10
Lock em up jpak Oct 2021 #2
And how long will that take? bamagal62 Oct 2021 #3
Been nine years since this one Effete Snob Oct 2021 #4
What? It's October! Of same year! Jeez. Only been 9 NINE months! Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2021 #8
Methinks this is going to be a seriously BFD. OAITW r.2.0 Oct 2021 #5
It's going to be very serious malaise Oct 2021 #17
It's going to be very serious malaise Oct 2021 #18
Oh Snap! sheshe2 Oct 2021 #6
So, how long will the Justice Department drag out pondering whether to prosecute... Silent3 Oct 2021 #7
Yup! Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2021 #9
Speaking of dragging StarfishSaver Oct 2021 #11
I didn't cast any doubt on the already-issued subpoenas... Silent3 Oct 2021 #15
It doesn't matter Effete Snob Oct 2021 #16
Oh, and here's your answer Effete Snob Oct 2021 #19
Which is why I'm a bit despondent about success, soon or ever Silent3 Oct 2021 #22
The OP is a little misleading, though Effete Snob Oct 2021 #23
Sad. Even more lame. n/t Silent3 Oct 2021 #24
bet one referral gets within a 24 hr pick-up just to get the ball rolling ! monkeyman1 Oct 2021 #12
Yes. I'm sure they have already coordinated strategy with DOJ and have this all gamed out StarfishSaver Oct 2021 #13
once they start getting picked up , maybe it might get their attention ! monkeyman1 Oct 2021 #14
You're "sure" of this Effete Snob Oct 2021 #20
Interesting thread. Kingofalldems Oct 2021 #21
In case you missed it... Effete Snob Oct 2021 #25
 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
10. Too late. "The Garland won't do anything" crowd, as you say
Tue Oct 5, 2021, 12:47 AM
Oct 2021

arrived before the paid lobby! It's a good day!

 

Effete Snob

(8,387 posts)
4. Been nine years since this one
Mon Oct 4, 2021, 11:46 PM
Oct 2021

Republicans have also made criminal contempt referrals when it was their turn in power.

They did this nine years ago, when Eric Holder had enough of their Fast & Furious nonsense:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/06/28/155928783/house-set-for-vote-on-holding-attorney-general-holder-in-contempt

OAITW r.2.0

(25,724 posts)
5. Methinks this is going to be a seriously BFD.
Mon Oct 4, 2021, 11:49 PM
Oct 2021

And if you lie under oath, I think they will criminally prosecute for that as well.

 

Silent3

(15,909 posts)
7. So, how long will the Justice Department drag out pondering whether to prosecute...
Tue Oct 5, 2021, 12:38 AM
Oct 2021

...and, if and when they get around to prosecuting the contempt charges, how long can the people charged drag out that fight in court?

This mess can probably only be fixed by Constitutional amendment, which probably means it'll never get fixed at all.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
11. Speaking of dragging
Tue Oct 5, 2021, 01:13 AM
Oct 2021

Where are the subpoenas?!? We DEMAND subpoenas!!! You're never going to subpoena them!!!

{We just issues subpoenas}

So WHAT?! They're not going to show up. Where are the contempt charges?!?! You'll never charge them with contempt!!!

{Anyone who doesn't show up will be charged with contempt of Congress}

So WHAT?! You'll never enforce contempt charges!!! We DEMAND that you enforce them!

{We'll refer contempt of Congress charges to DOJ for criminal prosecution}

So WHAT?! It will only get dragged out in court. We DEMAND a constitutional amendment!




 

Silent3

(15,909 posts)
15. I didn't cast any doubt on the already-issued subpoenas...
Tue Oct 5, 2021, 03:42 AM
Oct 2021

…, on the likelihood that Congress will file charges for contempt as needed, or even in the idea that the DoJ will (in the fullness of time) prosecute for contempt.

My well-founded concern is the alacrity of the DoJ and how badly the courts will be abused to play for time and try to run out the clock.

 

Effete Snob

(8,387 posts)
16. It doesn't matter
Tue Oct 5, 2021, 08:54 AM
Oct 2021

You don’t understand how this works.

It doesn’t matter what YOU say. Someone else said something else. Therefore YOU are a hypocrite for saying something different than what someone else said.

That’s how bunker mentality works. Anyone who sees things differently from you is part of a hive mind of others who all think the same thing. So if any people among those others differ, then they are all hypocrites and goal post movers because they do not all agree on exactly the same thing.

 

Effete Snob

(8,387 posts)
19. Oh, and here's your answer
Tue Oct 5, 2021, 09:03 AM
Oct 2021

Last edited Tue Oct 5, 2021, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Since you only got a personal attack so far, your answer is here:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45653


"Congress’s ability to issue and enforce its own subpoenas is essential to the legislative function
and an “indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” That said, the prevailing enforcement
mechanisms of criminal contempt of Congress and civil enforcement, both of which rely on the
assistance and participation of the other branches of government, have certain drawbacks that
arguably limit their effectiveness in ensuring timely compliance with congressional subpoenas by
executive branch officials.
"


These referrals have been made before. Nothing has ever come of them, so there is no answer to your question. That’s why you only got a personal attack instead of an answer.

 

Silent3

(15,909 posts)
22. Which is why I'm a bit despondent about success, soon or ever
Tue Oct 5, 2021, 03:07 PM
Oct 2021

If I had my way (which I won't ever have), I'd amend the Constitution to put a strict time limit on appeals of Congressional subpoenas, force courts to take any appeals on a speedy emergency basis, and give Congress its own small police force to arrest and detain those who evade subpoenas, and to confiscate subpoenaed evidence.

To prevent abuse of this power members of Congress would be subject to criminal consequences for abusing their subpoena power, but THAT would be the battle that could be allowed to drag out in court for months or years. In the meantime benefit of the doubt goes to Congress, testimony and evidence would come first, with no more delay than a month, and with any disputes and possible penalties wrapped up later.

 

Effete Snob

(8,387 posts)
23. The OP is a little misleading, though
Tue Oct 5, 2021, 03:22 PM
Oct 2021

The actual article has the chairman saying to reporters:

"The committee will probably for those who don’t agree to come in voluntarily..."

The word "probably" got lost somewhere on the way to DU, and it's not as if the committee has discusses, let alone resolved, to do so.

It's really just a hypothetical at this point.
 

Effete Snob

(8,387 posts)
20. You're "sure" of this
Tue Oct 5, 2021, 10:10 AM
Oct 2021

Wow, you must have some really good sources of information, in order to be sure.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In case you missed it (I ...