(06-29-2012 02:58 PM)Velleity Wrote: ...every court has inherent power and jurisdiction to hold people in either indirect or direct civil or criminal contempt. I forget the distinction between civil and criminal but it's not what you might think it is. Direct vs. indirect is about whether or not it happens in front of the judge.
But this is Congress, not a court. Does DOJ have to prosecute?
No DOJ does not have to prosecute which is part of the reason Issa also brought a "civil contempt" vote to the floor (which, unless I am mistaken also passed the vote in the house).
The "civil contempt" vote authorizes Issa to hire a lawyer to sue Holder in court, take depositions, etc., etc. In other words it is "Monica Lewinski" all over again with lawyers ready to pounce at any miscue. I can even see Kenneth Starr being called on to play a role in this charade.
From an article in USA Today:
Quote:But the House also passed a civil contempt citation -- meaning the GOP can go to court to try and get the documents.
The GOP's prospects for success in a lawsuit are uncertain.
President Obama, at Holder's behest, asserted executive privilege over documents related to internal administration deliberations.
Holder, who described the contempt votes as purely political, said he's willing to negotiate with the House on document production.