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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

tblue37

(65,269 posts)
Sat Sep 25, 2021, 10:16 PM Sep 2021

J6 Committee Chairman willing to lock up Bannon & Meadows if they ignore subpoenas:



Text

January 6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson announces that if Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows refuse to comply with their subpoenas, he will have “no reluctance” to charge them with “criminal contempt” and lock them up.
36 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
J6 Committee Chairman willing to lock up Bannon & Meadows if they ignore subpoenas: (Original Post) tblue37 Sep 2021 OP
good . criminal contempt , us marshal time . AllaN01Bear Sep 2021 #1
Good....let them enjoy their stay in federal incarceration. OAITW r.2.0 Sep 2021 #2
Heck. D.C. Lockup is hospitable enough. Grasswire2 Sep 2021 #5
McDougall was held in federal custody for refusing to appear before a grand jury in a criminal case StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #6
facts Grasswire2 Sep 2021 #10
McDougal was jailed for refusing to testify in a criminal proceeding. StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #17
But you said she failed to appear before a grand jury, above. nt Grasswire2 Sep 2021 #28
You're right. She APPEARED before the grand jury but refused to TESTIFY StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #31
Thank you SO much for reminding us all about the Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2021 #22
that was a rotten time, wasn't it? Grasswire2 Sep 2021 #25
this, from CNN archives Grasswire2 Sep 2021 #27
Siegelman's...horrible. Yes, that was horrible dmr Sep 2021 #34
Stealing our Democracy Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2021 #35
It is sad that we need an excuse to lock these assholes up LetMyPeopleVote Sep 2021 #3
Shouldn't we always need a good reason to lock people up? StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #7
+1 Celerity Sep 2021 #11
It seems like there should be plenty of good reasons given their past actions. Salviati Sep 2021 #13
Repunlicans think Dems dont "have the balls" to play hardball. Chipper Chat Sep 2021 #4
At times I've thought that also. nt Hotler Sep 2021 #33
It would be real swell to see them chained together shuffling about. nt Baked Potato Sep 2021 #8
Source blogslug Sep 2021 #9
On the table? Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2021 #16
I doubt if they will do anything about Meadows besides censure him or something like that LeftInTX Sep 2021 #26
Na, censure too bold:( Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2021 #29
Let's hope they hold to this.nt Javaman Sep 2021 #12
This is the toughness we need. EOM tiredtoo Sep 2021 #14
Hallelujah Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2021 #15
Gotta hand it to Democrats BlueIdaho Sep 2021 #18
Finally BidenRocks Sep 2021 #19
Can someone with a legal mind explain to me how congress can do this? Takket Sep 2021 #20
In this instance, Congress wouldn't be suing to enforce its subpoenas, which the court said StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #21
Yes but is raised another Takket Sep 2021 #23
Because Trump's Justice Department would never prosecute it StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #24
Amen! IT IS ABOUT TIME FOR THE SPOILED BRATS TO GET PUNISHED! ffr Sep 2021 #30
How about locking up anyone that refuses. Don't stop with these two guys. Hotler Sep 2021 #32
I'm sure that's the plan StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #36

Grasswire2

(13,565 posts)
5. Heck. D.C. Lockup is hospitable enough.
Sat Sep 25, 2021, 10:33 PM
Sep 2021

Or give them the Susan McDougall treatment.

Solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, chained to the cell toilet, shackled periodically and sent on the punitive prison bus relay around federal facilities.

Susan McDougall served 18 months for refusing to testify against Bill Clinton in a civil matter. How long can these bozos hold out? Let's see!

Grasswire2

(13,565 posts)
10. facts
Sat Sep 25, 2021, 10:59 PM
Sep 2021

from wikipedia

On August 5, 1994, Kenneth Starr became Independent Counsel to prosecute McDougal and other Whitewater participants.[4] Her federal trial began in 1996, in which the government's star witness, Arkansas banker and former municipal judge David Hale, claimed that Governor Bill Clinton had discussed an illegal $300,000 loan with him and McDougal. Hale was himself under investigation for having defrauded the SBA out of $3.2 million. He also unsuccessfully sought to have his brother Milas Hale corroborate his testimony against Clinton.[5]

McDougal was convicted of her role in Whitewater on May 28, 1996, and was sentenced to spend time in prison for four counts of fraud and conspiracy relating to the Whitewater scandal, but her prison term did not begin until March 7, 1998, as there were other court proceedings. Following her ex-husband's James (Jim) B. McDougal's conviction but prior to his sentencing, he began to co-operate with the Office of Independent Counsel and tried to persuade her to do likewise to avoid a prison sentence.

Susan's defense lawyer, Mark Geragos, stated that her ex-husband told her that Deputy Independent Counsel W. Hickman Ewing Jr. would be able to "get Clinton with a sex charge" before the 1996 election if she agreed to lie and say she had had an affair with Clinton. She has always denied ever having had an affair with Clinton.[6]

Ewing denied to reporters, during a break in the proceedings, that he had ever heard of such a plan: "I never talked to Jim McDougal about that, and I wouldn't. I never heard any discussion along those lines in my office ever at the time frame she's talking about."

Rejecting her ex-husband's advice, McDougal's sentencing hearing began August 19, 1996. After the judge levied a sentence of two years in federal prison but before she left the courtroom, Starr had her served with a subpoena for another Whitewater grand jury, to begin two weeks later.[7]


Grand jury
During the grand jury, McDougal stated her full name "for the record" and then refused to answer any questions. In her book, she explained, "I feared being accused of perjury if I told the grand jury the truth. The OIC had accepted David Hale's lies as the truth. They were also now relying on Jim McDougal's lies, which they'd carefully helped him construct. If I came in and directly contradicted those two -- whose testimony had been used to convict me of four felonies -- I feared the OIC would next accuse me of perjury." She also writes that she feared the same fate as Julie Hiatt Steele,[8] who had contradicted the testimony of White House aide Kathleen Willey: "Simply telling the truth cost Steele everything she had, almost landed her in jail [for perjury], and jeopardized her custody of her adopted son."[9]

McDougal's grand jury testimony included her response: "Get another independent counsel and I'll answer every question."[10] She was publicly rebuked for refusing to answer "three questions"[11] about whether President Clinton had lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial, particularly when he denied any knowledge of an illegal $300,000 loan. U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright sentenced her for civil contempt of court.

Prison
From September 9, 1996 to March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months' imprisonment for civil contempt, including eight months in solitary confinement, and she was subjected to "diesel therapy," described by McDougal as "the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way."[12][13]


McDougal was shuffled from Arkansas to "Los Angeles to the Oklahoma City transfer center, and then on to the Pulaski County Jail in Little Rock, Arkansas".[14]

Following her release on March 7, 1998 for civil contempt of court, McDougal began serving the two-year sentence for her 1996 conviction.[15]

Soon afterward, the Independent Counsel indicted McDougal on criminal charges of contempt of court and obstruction of justice. After serving four months on the Whitewater fraud conviction, she was released for medical reasons.[16]

After McDougal's release, her embezzlement trial in California began. In 1998, McDougal was acquitted on all 12 counts.[17]

A suit in 1999 against Nancy Mehta for malicious prosecution was settled out of court.[18]

McDougal's trial for criminal charges of contempt of court and obstruction of justice began in March 1999. The jury deadlocked 7–5 in her favor on the charge of contempt of court and found her not guilty on the charge of obstruction of justice.[19] In 2001, in the final hours of his presidency, President Clinton granted McDougal a full presidential pardon.[20]

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
17. McDougal was jailed for refusing to testify in a criminal proceeding.
Sat Sep 25, 2021, 11:37 PM
Sep 2021

She refused to testify before the grand jury which was considering criminal charges in a criminal matter.

McDougal was charged with contempt of court, which can be either criminal or civil. In her case she was charged with civil contempt of court. But her contempt of court was for refusal to testify against Bill Clinton in a criminal proceeding, not a civil one, just as I said.

Facts.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
31. You're right. She APPEARED before the grand jury but refused to TESTIFY
Sun Sep 26, 2021, 07:15 AM
Sep 2021

Thank you for the correction.

And now that you've cleared that up, back to my original point.

The proceeding at issue in Susan McDougal's contempt charge and jail time was a criminal case, not a civil one.

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
22. Thank you SO much for reminding us all about the
Sat Sep 25, 2021, 11:49 PM
Sep 2021

Injustice they have wrought on human beings. Thank you !!! Have a personal interest in Siegelman's...horrible story too.

Lock them ALL up

Grasswire2

(13,565 posts)
25. that was a rotten time, wasn't it?
Sat Sep 25, 2021, 11:53 PM
Sep 2021

It was then that I started following politics closely, when I saw the task force that had been deployed by billionaire RWNJ Richard Mellon Scaife to take down Bill Clinton. Coulter, Kellyanne, Barbara Comstock, Ingraham, so many others. All groomed by Scaife-funded International Womens Forum for television propaganda jobs.

Grasswire2

(13,565 posts)
27. this, from CNN archives
Sun Sep 26, 2021, 12:09 AM
Sep 2021

[link:https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9609/04/s.mcdougal/index.shtml|



Susan McDougal Charged With Contempt
Susan McDougal
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AllPolitics, Sept. 4) -- The judge in the Whitewater grand jury proceedings today held Susan McDougal in contempt of court for refusing to answer three questions from prosecutors, including one concerning whether President Clinton lied in his testimony during her trial earlier this year.

dmr

(28,345 posts)
34. Siegelman's...horrible. Yes, that was horrible
Sun Sep 26, 2021, 11:00 AM
Sep 2021

I'm going to have to Google search him to see the outcome.

What they did to him was criminal.

Any idea if a book was written about his ordeal? If not, there ought to be.

Chipper Chat

(9,675 posts)
4. Repunlicans think Dems dont "have the balls" to play hardball.
Sat Sep 25, 2021, 10:22 PM
Sep 2021

Rhetorically . The milquetoast syndrome.
Let's show em Bennie.

blogslug

(37,990 posts)
9. Source
Sat Sep 25, 2021, 10:58 PM
Sep 2021



Manu Raju @mkraju

(Chief Congressional Correspondent, @CNN. Roaming the Capitol halls, covering the Hill and politics. Die-hard Chicago sports fan. Wisconsin Badger for life.)

Asked Bennie Thompson, chairman of Jan. 6 panel, how they'd handle the four Trump allies who have been subpoenaed -- if they don't comply
"Criminal contempt is on the table," Thompson said. "And if it comes to that, there will be no reluctance at all on the committee to do that"


Takket

(21,549 posts)
20. Can someone with a legal mind explain to me how congress can do this?
Sat Sep 25, 2021, 11:43 PM
Sep 2021

Especially in light of this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/court-dismisses-house-lawsuit-seeking-to-enforce-a-subpoena-of-former-white-house-counsel-donald-mcgahn/2020/08/31/c693ad3e-ebaf-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html%3foutputType=amp

A federal appeals court dismissed a House lawsuit Monday seeking to force President Trump’s former White House counsel Donald McGahn to comply with a congressional subpoena, saying that Congress has not passed a law expressly authorizing it to sue to enforce its subpoenas.
Support our journalism. Subscribe today
The divided 2-to-1 ruling dealt a blow to congressional oversight powers and came three weeks after the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed that Congress had standing to sue — that is, it had shown that the Trump administration’s refusal to allow McGahn to testify harmed the House’s long-standing right to compel testimony from government officials.
The full panel’s ruling returned the case to a three-judge panel of the court to consider other challenges in a historic clash between the branches of government.
In Monday’s opinion, two judges said that despite the injury to Congress, there was no statute by which it could seek a remedy, ending the case.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
21. In this instance, Congress wouldn't be suing to enforce its subpoenas, which the court said
Sat Sep 25, 2021, 11:46 PM
Sep 2021

they have no power to do.

Instead, they would hold the recalcitrant witnesses in contempt of Congress - which they do have the power to do - and refer the matter to the US Attorney for prosecution.

The court ruling in the McGahn case would have no effect on this process.

I hope that answers your question.

ffr

(22,665 posts)
30. Amen! IT IS ABOUT TIME FOR THE SPOILED BRATS TO GET PUNISHED!
Sun Sep 26, 2021, 12:34 AM
Sep 2021

Don't hold back. You won't lose our votes for upholding the law.

Hotler

(11,409 posts)
32. How about locking up anyone that refuses. Don't stop with these two guys.
Sun Sep 26, 2021, 10:38 AM
Sep 2021

I'm not getting my hopes up. I'll wait to see if it happens.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
36. I'm sure that's the plan
Mon Sep 27, 2021, 10:21 AM
Sep 2021

Chairman Thompson was probably responding to a question about those particular individuals, but I'm sure they are going to play hardball with anyone who defies the subpoenas.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»J6 Committee Chairman wil...