Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
This strikes me as extreme
RaceBannon
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,730 
in Tug Tavern
But extremism in the fight against Trump is no vice I imagine
https://foxnews.com/politics/tlaib-democrats-looking-into-how-to-arrest-trump-officials
Rep. Rashida Tlaib said Democratic lawmakers are exploring how to arrest White House officials who do not comply with congressional subpoenas.
Tlaib, D-Mich., told Detroit constituents at her "Congress, Coffee, and Conversation" event on Tuesday that lawmakers are focused on how best to take cabinet members into custody. "This is the first time we've ever had a situation like this," she said. "So they're trying to figure out, no joke, is it the D.C. police that goes and gets them? We don't know. Where do we hold them?"
An America Rising PAC tracker caught Tlaib on video speculating what could happen to Trump administration officials held in contempt of Congress. The congresswoman pointed to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Attorney General William Barr, who were both held in criminal contempt of Congress for defying congressional subpoenas.
The House of Representatives voted to ask the Justice Department to prosecute Barr and Ross by a margin of 230 to 198. It was the second time in U.S. history a sitting cabinet member was held in criminal contempt of Congress. The first was former attorney general Eric Holder, whom the Republican-controlled House held in contempt in 2012 after Holder refused to turn over documents pertaining to the Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal.
Tlaib said her colleagues are "trying to tread carefully" in this "uncharted territory."
"I will tell them they can hold all those people right here in Detroit," she joked. "We'll take care of them and make sure they show up to the committee hearings."
https://foxnews.com/politics/tlaib-democrats-looking-into-how-to-arrest-trump-officials
Rep. Rashida Tlaib said Democratic lawmakers are exploring how to arrest White House officials who do not comply with congressional subpoenas.
Tlaib, D-Mich., told Detroit constituents at her "Congress, Coffee, and Conversation" event on Tuesday that lawmakers are focused on how best to take cabinet members into custody. "This is the first time we've ever had a situation like this," she said. "So they're trying to figure out, no joke, is it the D.C. police that goes and gets them? We don't know. Where do we hold them?"
An America Rising PAC tracker caught Tlaib on video speculating what could happen to Trump administration officials held in contempt of Congress. The congresswoman pointed to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Attorney General William Barr, who were both held in criminal contempt of Congress for defying congressional subpoenas.
The House of Representatives voted to ask the Justice Department to prosecute Barr and Ross by a margin of 230 to 198. It was the second time in U.S. history a sitting cabinet member was held in criminal contempt of Congress. The first was former attorney general Eric Holder, whom the Republican-controlled House held in contempt in 2012 after Holder refused to turn over documents pertaining to the Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal.
Tlaib said her colleagues are "trying to tread carefully" in this "uncharted territory."
"I will tell them they can hold all those people right here in Detroit," she joked. "We'll take care of them and make sure they show up to the committee hearings."
Comments
As the Squad member said, this is unprecedented
But Trump said something about civil war!!!!!!
I seem to recall that we have three co equal branches of government. Or did.
And I said extreme. Not fascism
Another pithy reply from the lightweight attorney
Equal justice under the law is also our way of life Not one system for Democrats and one for GOP
Judge Nap or is it Nip has been pretty consistently coming down on the never Trump side yet he disagrees with you
Fox News senior judicial analyst and Fox Nation host Judge Andrew Napolitano backed the legal argument behind a White House letter expected to be sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., arguing that the White House does not have to comply with the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
The letter, which may be sent as early as Friday, apparently dares Pelosi to put the question of a formal impeachment inquiry before the House of Representatives for a vote.
On Sept. 24, Pelosi announced that House Democrats would undertake the probe without asking for the support of the members of the House.
Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editorial Board member Bill McGurn explored the issue on Fox Nation’s “Deep Dive,” saying, “If we're hearing how serious impeachment is -- what does it say for Mrs. Pelosi to do this in a way that's without precedent? It's just a decree on her part."
However, Pelosi decision carries other serious implications, as explained by Judge Napolitano, host of Fox Nation’s “Liberty File with Judge Napolitano.”
The White House letter will argue that the White House is not required to comply with the Democrats' investigation because Pelosi hasn't codified the probe with a formal vote on the House floor.
Trump set to send Pelosi a letter 'daring' her to hold impeachment inquiry voteVideo
The Judge’s remarks were recorded before Fox News confirmed that the White House planned to send this letter, but his legal analysis finds that the White House’s argument has merit.
He explained that Speaker Pelosi is not required to put the question of an impeachment inquiry up for a vote, but if she did, and if it was approved by a majority of House members, then her inquiry would be strengthened.
“Mrs. Pelosi is correct that the Constitution does not require a full House vote, before the House begins an impeachment inquiry, but when it does so… without the full House vote it does so based on federal law… that authority comes from statues, not the Constitution. That’s very significant. When an authority comes from a statute there are other statues that can contradict it,” the judge said.
He said the White House has the legal right to fight the Democrats’ effort to compel their cooperation.
“For example, if the House Intelligence Committee calls Rudy Giuliani to testify before it, I would expect that Giuliani would assert the attorney-client privilege, which is a court rule that comes from a statue… So Giuliani would say ‘Look I don’t have to answer any questions and I don’t have to show you any documents,’ and they would be at a standstill. And if the committee went to court, I think that Giuliani’s invocation of the attorney-client privilege would prevail,” he said.
But go ahead and send in the storm troopers
Not extreme at all
Lock her up was a racist dog whistle
I win.
Capable Representatives can multitask