We strengthen congressional capacities for oversight, investigation & enforcement of subpoenas of the executive branch & promote constitutionalism & rule of law
Washington, DC
Joined May 2017
- Tweets823
- Following3.8K
- Followers270
- Likes363
Pinned Tweet
GGN President @WJMurphy2:
"We're working on a proposal to strengthen the ability of Congress to enforce subpoenas to the executive branch."
Learn more about GGN here: goodgovernmentnow.org/
The best approach is for Congress to severely punish any executive branch personnel who obstruct its investigations using the inherent contempt power which authorizes fines, incarceration & other sanctions after conviction in legislative floor trials. bit.ly/2LunBZU
The best approach is for Congress to severely punish any executive branch personnel who obstruct its investigations using the inherent contempt power which authorizes fines, incarceration & other sanctions after conviction in legislative floor trials. bit.ly/2LunBZU
State Department threatening to obstruct ‘censorship’ investigation: House GOP washingtonexaminer.com/news/… via @dcexaminer
Congress can impose far heavier fines more quickly without DOJ assistance by holding its own internal trials to convict & punish those who defy subpoenas. GGNs inherent contempt fines rule proposes fines of $25,000 per day up to a maximum of $250,000. bit.ly/2LunBZU
Congress should immediately & severely punish such witnesses with heavy personal fines issued in inherent contempt proceedings. This could be done in days or weeks if the political will and commitment to reestablishing legislative authority existed. See bit.ly/2LunBZU
Good Government Now retweeted
If you believe the government should have to get a warrant to read Americans’ communications, CALL YOUR SENATORS AND TELL THEM “NO SECTION 702 EXTENSION ON THE NDAA WITHOUT A CERTIFICATION CAP.” What does that mean? I’ll explain. 1/15
Good Government Now retweeted
So now is the time for action. The procedural vote on the Section 702 extension will take place tomorrow. Retweet this, and then call your senators and tell them: “NO SECTION 702 EXTENSION WITHOUT A CERTIFICATION CAP.” @SenSchumer @LeaderMcConnell 14/15
1/3 Exactly right, @jsnfostr. The DC Circuit Court has explained that legislative bodies function as Supreme Courts when conducting contempt proceedings in the British & American traditions in its fascinating Ex Parte Nugent (1848) decision. See pdf p. 4-6 bit.ly/2ZtQxUW
2/3 Ex Parte Nugent approvingly cited the passages in Crosby’s Case (1771) affirming that the Houses of Parliament functioned as Supreme Courts in contempt proceedings such as “The house of commons is a supreme court” on p. 6 and others. See bit.ly/2ZtQxUW
3/3 Ex Parte Nugent also embraced the definition presented in Crosby’s Case that for purposes of contempt enforcement the phrase “all courts” included “the two houses of parliament.” This, of course, also applies to the houses of the US Congress. See p.6 bit.ly/2ZtQxUW
1/3 You nailed it @jsnfostr & @tristanleavitt. The inherent enforcement powers of Congress and the Courts are identical and include arrest, coercive detention, punitive incarceration, appointment of attorneys to prosecute criminal contempts, and fines.
.@tristanleavitt does not make things up.
That Congress has never used its inherent authority to impose fines, does not mean it lacks that authority.
Do some reading before pretending to be an instant expert.
goodgovernmentnow.org/wp-con…
3/3 SCOTUS explained the scope of the legislative contempt enforcement powers in the 1821 Anderson v. Dunn case by analogy to those of the judicial branch and noting their equivalence. This reasoning appears in other major inherent contempt cases including McGrain v. Daugherty.
.@tristanleavitt does not make things up.
That Congress has never used its inherent authority to impose fines, does not mean it lacks that authority.
Do some reading before pretending to be an instant expert.
goodgovernmentnow.org/wp-con…
2/3 Anderson v. Dunn (1821), the first great Supreme Court inherent contempt precedent, acknowledged fines, arrest, and imprisonment as coercive and punitive contempt enforcement options for Congress.
.@tristanleavitt does not make things up.
That Congress has never used its inherent authority to impose fines, does not mean it lacks that authority.
Do some reading before pretending to be an instant expert.
goodgovernmentnow.org/wp-con…
1/3 You nailed it @jsnfoster & @tristanleavitt. The inherent enforcement powers of Congress and the Courts are identical and include arrest, coercive detention, punitive incarceration, appointment of attorneys to prosecute criminal contempts, and fines.
.@tristanleavitt does not make things up.
That Congress has never used its inherent authority to impose fines, does not mean it lacks that authority.
Do some reading before pretending to be an instant expert.
goodgovernmentnow.org/wp-con…
Whistleblowers are often the first line of defense against waste, fraud, and abuse in government. Without them, many misdeeds would remain hidden. It is imperative that we foster a culture of protection and appreciation for whistleblowers who risk so much for the public interest.
Realistically, the only way for Congress to get the most important information it needs is to use inherent contempt to severely punish uncooperative witnesses to break their loyalty to their executive branch superiors. An impeachment proceeding alone won't accomplish this.
Good Government Now retweeted
.@ChadPergram please ask @SpeakerMcCarthy if he is willing to fully assert the constitutional authority of Congress to enforce its subpoenas by using inherent contempt. A speedy, modernized version based on heavy fines instead of arrest is available. bit.ly/2LunBZU
Truthfully, the only way to get the documents that you need is to use the inherent contempt power to severely punish uncooperative witnesses to break their obedience to their executive branch superiors. An impeachment proceeding alone won't accomplish this.
.@ChadPergram please ask @SpeakerMcCarthy if he is willing to fully assert the constitutional authority of Congress to enforce its subpoenas by using inherent contempt. A speedy, modernized version based on heavy fines instead of arrest is available. bit.ly/2LunBZU
Congress should not let Weiss set the conditions of his testimony such as testifying in public. He & almost all other witnesses should be interviewed in private first. Initial public testimony offers witness PR opportunity. Congress can take it public later if advantageous to it.
This Post is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
DOJ’s assertions in this letter are typically misguided. Congress is under no obligation to contact DOJ before summoning witnesses & demanding answers from them. Negotiation may begin after Congress initiates. Also nothing stopping DOJ from initiating & sharing its views.
