Adventures in Obstructing Oversight

Congressional Democrats appear determined to ensure that Peter Strzok does not have to answer questions. Why would that be?

UPDATE: Contempt of Congress for Strzok. Well, many of us hold Congress in contempt, at least informally. The question is whether or not there are any consequences for doing so formally. Eric Holder was held in contempt; so what?

If Congress does not wish to be held in contempt they will have to learn to uphold their honor. As long as they do not, contempt of them will flourish.


MikeD said...

The world wonders.

E Hines said...

It's only that the House no longer has any collective stones.

A perfectly fine precedent was set by the Senate in 1935(!). There, the Senate held MacCracken in contempt, the Senate's Sergeant at Arms was instructed by the Senate to deputize such folks as he thought he'd need, and then to arrest MacCracken and haul him before the Senate for trial. The Senate's trial occurred, MacCracken was convicted, and the Senate threw him in jail. No DoJ involvement at all. Jurney v MacCracken was the Supreme Court upholding all of that, saying that contempt of the Senate and the consequences thereof were political matters and not judicial ones.

There's no valid reason the House can't do that now.

Eric Hines

ymarsakar said...

Congress doesn't tell the Deep State or the President what to do.

They are rather superfluous at this point.

From a military perspective, being held in oversight by Congress seemed very stressful and inefficient. Then I found out Congress was more or less toothless compared to the Deep State. That got into a different realm.