5 ms·

It sounds like they are getting the data legally. However, it also sounds like they're guilty of contempt of congress. Jail the guy they were talking to, call

It sounds like they are getting the data legally. However, it also sounds like they're guilty of contempt of congress. Jail the guy they were talking to, call his superior. Repeat until you have the answers.

gumby 6y ago
Congress can't really know if they are or are not without being able to subpoena personnel and documents.
PeterisP 6y ago
Well, congress gets to decide which ways of getting the data will be legal. So if the congress is not satisfied that CBP is getting the data in a way that they are happy with, then they can and should change the rules.
- ausbah 6y ago
  courts also have a say if the right case gets presented, and it's doubtful any meaningful legislation can be done in this political environment
FireBeyond 6y ago
Acquiring the data, perhaps. Utilizing it, from this article, is a lot less clear.
1024core 6y ago
I wish the Democrats had the backbone to start throwing uncooperating bureaucrats into jail. I bet the rest of them would fall in line pretty quickly. It is the Congress' job to conduct oversight. You can't have any "oversight" without cooperation and truthfullness.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Does the House have the sole power to do this? Or do you need both?
  - klyrs 6y ago
    It's my understanding that Congress has the power to summon anybody, arrest and jail them for failure to appear. It sounds like they have neither the bodies nor the jail to actually execute that power -- nor have they tried to acquire such resources. The net effect is that the white house has refused to permit folks to appear before Congress, and Congress has acquiesced every time... setting a precedent that the Executive branch cannot, in fact, be checked by the Legislative branch.
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      This is just interesting trivia, but the House and Senate can both ask their respective Sergeant at Arms to perform an arrest. This has never happened as far as I know, but from my reading seems to be permissible for a failure to appear. There are plenty of logistical issues. I'm not sure the Sergeant at Arms even owns handcuffs, much less a place to keep people being held, and I'm sure it would suddenly become a huge scandal - but it would be very interesting.
      - investinwaffles 6y ago
        In 1934, a man named William P. MacCracken Jr. was held overnight at a local hotel before being transferred to a DC jail. There is no actual jail on premises.
      - scott00 6y ago
        In 1922, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms deputized someone who then traveled to Ohio and arrested the brother of the sitting Attorney General after he ignored a Senate subpoena and was cited for contempt of Congress. The arrest was upheld by the Supreme Court in McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927. In 1934, the Senate cited two men for contempt of Congress and sentenced them to 10 days in the DC jail. One, William P. MacCracken, Jr, fought the case in court, eventually losing in the Supreme Court case Jurney v. MacCracken of 1935. He served one night of his sentence in the home of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms and another in the Willard hotel... I was unable to figure out if he ever actually ended up in the DC jail.
- yummypaint 6y ago
  Jailing people for contempt of congress requires that the DOJ do its job in good faith. Barr was appointed partly to prevent this

gumby 6y ago

Congress can't really know if they are or are not without being able to subpoena personnel and documents.

PeterisP 6y ago

Well, congress gets to decide which ways of getting the data will be legal. So if the congress is not satisfied that CBP is getting the data in a way that they are happy with, then they can and should change the rules.

ausbah 6y ago
courts also have a say if the right case gets presented, and it's doubtful any meaningful legislation can be done in this political environment

FireBeyond 6y ago

Acquiring the data, perhaps. Utilizing it, from this article, is a lot less clear.

1024core 6y ago

I wish the Democrats had the backbone to start throwing uncooperating bureaucrats into jail. I bet the rest of them would fall in line pretty quickly. It is the Congress' job to conduct oversight. You can't have any "oversight" without cooperation and truthfullness.

bobthepanda 6y ago
Does the House have the sole power to do this? Or do you need both?
- klyrs 6y ago
  It's my understanding that Congress has the power to summon anybody, arrest and jail them for failure to appear. It sounds like they have neither the bodies nor the jail to actually execute that power -- nor have they tried to acquire such resources. The net effect is that the white house has refused to permit folks to appear before Congress, and Congress has acquiesced every time... setting a precedent that the Executive branch cannot, in fact, be checked by the Legislative branch.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    This is just interesting trivia, but the House and Senate can both ask their respective Sergeant at Arms to perform an arrest. This has never happened as far as I know, but from my reading seems to be permissible for a failure to appear. There are plenty of logistical issues. I'm not sure the Sergeant at Arms even owns handcuffs, much less a place to keep people being held, and I'm sure it would suddenly become a huge scandal - but it would be very interesting.
    - investinwaffles 6y ago
      In 1934, a man named William P. MacCracken Jr. was held overnight at a local hotel before being transferred to a DC jail. There is no actual jail on premises.
    - scott00 6y ago
      In 1922, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms deputized someone who then traveled to Ohio and arrested the brother of the sitting Attorney General after he ignored a Senate subpoena and was cited for contempt of Congress. The arrest was upheld by the Supreme Court in McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927. In 1934, the Senate cited two men for contempt of Congress and sentenced them to 10 days in the DC jail. One, William P. MacCracken, Jr, fought the case in court, eventually losing in the Supreme Court case Jurney v. MacCracken of 1935. He served one night of his sentence in the home of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms and another in the Willard hotel... I was unable to figure out if he ever actually ended up in the DC jail.
yummypaint 6y ago
Jailing people for contempt of congress requires that the DOJ do its job in good faith. Barr was appointed partly to prevent this