Ted Lieu Has A Plan-- Señor Trumpanzee And His Evil Elves Are Not Going To Like It One Bit

Yesterday, you may have read about Ted Lieu's proposal to strengthen Congress’ contempt power to break administration stonewalls. Ted and 5 other members of the Judiciary Committee-- Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Joe Neguse (D-CO), David Cicilline (D-RI), Val Demings (D-FL), and Madeleine Dean (D-PA)-- have been frustrated and angry enough about the Trump Regime systematically defying subpoenas to propose a strong "inherent contempt" rule that would ratchet up their power to punish executive branch officials who reject their legitimate requests. If Congress adopts the rule, they would be giving themselves "authority to unilaterally punish anyone who defies a subpoena for testimony or documents."

Though Congress has long had inherent contempt power, it has been in disuse since before World War II. This power, upheld by courts, has included the ability to levy fines and even jail witnesses who refuse to cooperate with congressional demands.

But such extreme measures have fallen out of favor over the years, as Congress has relied instead primarily on litigation to enforce its subpoenas and officials across government have acknowledged the unappetizing prospect of using force to impose its will. It's even trickier when applied to a coequal branch of government, which may have its own privileges and protections to assert.

...“We've seen unprecedented and illegal obstruction by the Trump administration to Congress where the administration has essentially directed witnesses not to show up to committees even after they have been given lawful congressional subpoenas,” Lieu said in an interview. “We need an enforcement mechanism.”

Lieu's proposal only focuses on monetary penalties. It would establish a process for negotiations between Congress and executive branch officials when disputes arise over testimony and records. The measure would allow federal agencies to lodge objections to congressional requests, and it would permit the president to weigh in and assert any applicable privileges. The measure would also establish a process for holding recalcitrant officials in contempt, including hearings before the full House in which the subject would be permitted to present a defense and would face questions from lawmakers on the House floor.

If the House supports contempt after such a proceeding, it would then vote a second time to impose a financial penalty of up to $25,000. The penalty would be delayed for 20 days to allow for continued negotiations before subsequent penalties may be imposed up to an aggregate of $100,000. The measure would also bar taxpayer dollars from being used to cover any fines assessed through this mechanism.

Democrats say the measure is a crucial effort to formalize and reinvigorate Congress' long-dormant powers.

Lieu said he is hopeful to implement it quickly but at the very least would like it in future Congress’ toolbox. He said the prospect that inherent contempt would be abused by lawmakers is slim.

“The way to prevent it from being abused is pretty simple: the witness just shows up,” Lieu said.

Speaking of which... I got my hands on a letter Lieu's office sent to the Honorable Mike Pompeo, Trumpist Secretary of State, yesterday. "Dear Secretary Pompeo," he began, "As Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who served on active duty, we are deeply disturbed by the explosive allegations that Russia paid bounties to militants to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan. We are equally disturbed that the Trump Administration apparently knew about these bounties in March but has failed to respond in any meaningful way. Additional reporting has suggested that U.S. intelligence officers and Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan alerted their superiors about suspected Russian bounties as early as January. However, rather than confronting Russia and standing up for our servicemen and women, the President last month invited Vladimir Putin to the G7 summit. This appeasement of Russian aggression is unacceptable and must stop."

Sounds like trouble. " Over the past several years," continued Lieu, "we have seen an emboldened Russia take increasingly aggressive actions against the United States and its allies. In 2014, Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Our best intelligence has repeatedly confirmed that Russia engaged in a sweeping and systematic attack on U.S. elections in 2016. The Russian military routinely flies military planes into U.S. airspace. And, if the bounty allegation is true, Russia is now paying militants to kill Americans. Despite Russia’s repeated hostile actions, the Trump Administration has often had weak responses or no response whatsoever. The United States cannot stand idly by as Russia brazenly threatens our servicemembers and our national security. We urge you to take diplomatic action immediately. In light of continuing Russian aggression, we request that you answer the following questions as soon as possible:"

• Is Russia paying, or has Russia paid, bounties to people who kill U.S. troops? If yes, when were you first made aware of these bounties? Did you discuss this information with the President and, if so, when?
• What diplomatic efforts, if any, have you made to inform Russian leaders that the United States will not stand for foreign governments paying bounties to kill American servicemembers?
• Is Russia providing any other assistance to the Taliban that may harm U.S. troops or our national security interests?
• Is the Administration planning on imposing sanctions or taking other diplomatic actions against Russia to deter their hostile behavior? If so, what is the timeline?
• How has the alleged Russian intervention in Afghanistan affected the Administration’s the Administration’s timeline for troop withdrawal and overall plan for peace?

We request that you provide the answers within 14 days upon receipt of this letter.  Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

As reasonable as it is, Pompeo is likely to ignore this request. If inherent contempt were functioning... he might think twice.