If any Democrat in the House happens to stumble across this post, PLEASE consider the following

[Atticus]

heartfelt advice: if you are not willing to "PUNISH" these Republican pieces of shit when they refuse to answer your proper questions, DO NOT SUBPOENA THEM! Putting your impotence on display in front of a nationwide TV audience is eroding the enthusiasm of your party and the potential support of independents and disaffected Republicans.

If you are still reading, review the the "questions" asked of Lewandowski today by the GOP whores you refer to as "colleagues" and explain if you can why you should ever waste time trying to cooperate with them or consider their views.

I used to be strongly in favor of these hearings being public, but I had no idea how embarrassing they might be for those of us who expected the results of the 2018 elections to impact the most corrupt regime ever to rule our nation.

[ripcord]

1. They can not punish them for refusing to answer

A subpoena only requires the person show before the committee not to answer questions.

[KPN]

4. They can charge them with contempt. DOJ

won’t enforce, but s future DOJ could.

[Atticus]

7. The House has inherent authority to arrest contemnors and fine and/or incarcerate them. It hasn't

been exercised since 1934, but that was because up until Barr, Congress could rely on the USAG to obey the law, not the criminal who appointed him.

[triron]

9. Exactly. Almost Everyone seems to want to ignore this it seems.

Fuck damn.

[sharedvalues]

15. Yes. Call the sergeant at arms

[Prendy]

12. The Supreme Court has said the AG is not needed to enforce contempt

According to a discussion in Salon, “the courts have granted both the House and Senate “authority to enforce their orders by imprisoning those who violate them — literally,” and order the sergeant-at-arms to take violators into custody. In 1821, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the “inherent authority” to arrest witnesses for failing to comply with lawful orders. That authority was reinforced in 1927, when, according to Reuters, the Court ruled that the Senate acted within the law by “sending its deputy sergeant-at-arms to Ohio to arrest and detain the brother of the then-attorney general.”

[Hermit-The-Prog]

18. the court didn't "grant" that power, it acknowledged it

The Constitution grants the power by way of the enumerated powers of the House and Senate. The power to compel is necessary to those powers of legislation.

The main contention of MacCracken is that the so-called power to punish for contempt may never be exerted, in the case of a private citizen, solely qua punishment. The argument is that the power may be used by the legislative body merely as a means of removing an existing obstruction to the performance of its duties; that the power to punish ceases as soon as the obstruction has been removed or its removal has become impossible, and hence that there is no power to punish a witness who, having been requested to produce papers, destroys them after service of the subpoena. The contention rests upon a misconception of the limitations upon the power of the Houses of Congress to punish for contempt. It is true that the scope of the power is narrow. No act is so punishable

Page 294 U. S. 148

unless it is of a nature to obstruct the performance of the duties of the Legislature. There may be lack of power because, as in Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, there was no legislative duty to be performed, or because, as in Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U. S. 521, the act complained of is deemed not to be of a character to obstruct the legislative process. But, where the offending act was of a nature to obstruct the legislative process, the fact that the obstruction has since been removed, or that its removal has become impossible, is without legal significance.

The power to punish a private citizen for a past and completed act was exerted by Congress as early as 1795, [Footnote 4] and since then it has been exercised on several occasions.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/

[Iliyah]

2. Honestly, Republicans looked and acted like crazy fools.

American people see this regardless of what Republican owned media say. Thanks my opinion.

[Hortensis]

3. Yes, because you desperately need our advice.

[Atticus]

5. ??? nt

[grumpyduck]

6. None of them will read this.

AFAIC, they're all living in a different reality, listening only to what they think is politically useful or what their aides tell them. They don't listen to us common people.

Sorry if that's offensive, but that's been my experience.

[GulfCoast66]

8. You say punish...what does that look like?

The Congress acting alone cannot punish from everything I have ever read. They can hold someone in contempt like the republicans did to Holder, but what does that accomplish.

Hear’s a different idea. How about we don’t blame democrats for republican corruption.

[triron]

10. Please reread post 7.

[Atticus]

11. First, see #7 above re: punishment. Second, I do not blame Democrats for Republican corruption,

but I do criticize their failure to do EVERYTHING in their power to address and, yes, punish, that corruption. I am not suggesting that we break the law because they do. I am suggesting that we "push the envelope", seek new interpretations of existing laws, dust off seldom used but valid laws and, in general, not be afraid that Republicans will call us "not nice".

[Skittles]

16. HEAR, HEAR

FED UP with the inaction

[FBaggins]

13. For goodness sake. The hearing isn't even over yet

The House has that authority (in theory). The hearing would have to end and then someone would suggest holding him in contempt and then the full House would have to have a hearing and a vote.

A committee chairman can't just say "That's it! Lock him up!"

[Skittles]

17. he's basing it on their overall record

[yaesu]

14. every time a fascist wouldn't take no for an answer his, her mic should have been shut off

they did it to us all the time when they were in charge.

[cwydro]

19. Rec!

Rec rec rec rec rec times infinity!

Thank you.