Issaa threatens ATF with contempt re: Gunrunner

[Dave Workman]

Congressman Darrell Issa has threatened the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives with a contempt citation for having failed to produce any documents relating to Project Gunrunner that Issa subpoenaed on March 31.


http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...atf-with-contempt-over-gunrunner-stonewalling


AND CODREA writes about it here:

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...mpt-for-noncompliance-with-gunwalker-subpoena

 

[One-Time]

theres gonna be a clerical mistake shredding or maybe a fire soon at ATF I bet

 

[Standing Wolf]

theres gonna be a clerical mistake shredding or maybe a fire soon at ATF I bet

Not to mention some unfortunate hard drive failures.

Thanks for keeping us posted, Dave!

 

[swinokur]

All the BATFE paperwork was lost in a tragic boating accident.

 

[Slotback]

This could get really interesting in a hurry.......

 

[InkEd]

I just glad somebody finally called B.S. on the A.T.F.

A.T.F.= Against Truth and Freedom

 

[69Rebel]

I just hope Issa doesn't end up in a tragic boating accident.

 

[Bubbles]

Not to mention some unfortunate hard drive failures.

IT folks who are in charge of disaster recovery are smart enough to keep offsite backups of everything. Since much of the documentation being requested was passed around via email, eventually it will be found.

 

[Ed N.]

So he files a contempt citation. So what? Congress has no enforcement powers; that's in the Executive branch. It's not like there are congressional cops that can go make an arrest.

About the only thing Congress could do would be to de-fund the BATFE. Don't hold your breath.

 

[Bubbles]

ETA: Note that even if those convicted get minimal fines and no jail time, they will also lose their jobs as a misdemeanor conviction means they're no longer eligible for the position.

Contempt of Congress
Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.

Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.

Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate.

Generally, the same Constitutional rights against self-incrimination that apply in a judicial setting apply when one is testifying before Congress.

Caselaw

Quinn v. U.S., 349 U.S. 155, 75 S. Ct. 668, 99 L. Ed. 964, 51 A.L.R.2d 1157 (1955).

Fields v. U.S., 164 F.2d 97 (App. D.C. 1947).

 

[armoredman]

Meaning we could have a few cops in Club Fed for a year.

 

[Ed N.]

Contempt of Congress
Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.

Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.

Yes, I'm well aware of the law and the penalty. So what?

Laws are meaningless unless there is an ability to enforce them. How does Congress imprison someone for 12 months under this? Congress is completely dependant upon the Executive branch to send people with guns to take the miscreant into custody and slap him in jail.

When the person Congress needs to imprison is himself part of the Executive branch, and the President isn't going to order him taken into custody, Congress' findings of contempt don't mean much.

Just like Congress can pass imigration laws, but they don't mean a bloody thing if the Executive branch won't enforce them.

 

[hnk45acp]

There's also a political positive in this. If the antis exploit gun related tragedies to further their cause, events like this bolster our arguments

 

[armoredman]

If the Executive Branch deliberately fails to enforce the law, the other two branches can act to nullify or remove the problem. Question is - will they?

 

[Shadow 7D]

Actually, if the executive branch fails to enforce, Congress can literally turn the lights out in the white house, not pay the phone bill, and ground Air force one. Someone's got to pay for the gas

 

[Shadow 7D]

double post

 

[Ed N.]

Actually, if the executive branch fails to enforce, Congress can literally turn the lights out in the white house, not pay the phone bill, and ground Air force one. Someone's got to pay for the gas

That was my point earlier; about all Congress can do is cut funding. Effective, but unlikely to happen. Congress can't even pass a budget. Do you really think they could defund BATFE? Or "turn out the lights?" HAH! Ain't happening. You're asking the mice to bell the cat.

Enforcement ultimately comes down to the ability and willingness to use force. Congress has neither. Even if it had the willingness, the ability is solely within the Executive branch.

 

[Whiskey11]

Sounds like de-funding (and removing ) the ATF is a great way to get our National Budget back on track.... anyone else want to help send that on up to our congressional leaders?

Of course being tongue in cheek... or maybe not

 

[jfrey]

I sent an email to both my Senator and Representative suggesting exactly that: that we defund the ATF. I got the usual "I support the Second Amendment and your rights" reply from my Senator and nothing from the Rep. Our well paid hacks in DC aren't really going to do anything unless it helps them financially. While this whole thing sounds good on Issa's part, I see it as all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Cyborg]

ED_N is on target.
Our DOJ has already shown that it will not enforce certain laws on certain classes of people - the Philadelphia voter indimidation case from 08 - and that it will not defend certain statutes - notably the Defense of Marriage Act - against court challenges. Why should we expect the DOJ to enforce a Contempt of Congress finding upon one of their own?

It's like a consumptive cross between Wally Cox and Don Knots (Wally Don) playing poker with a cross between Ahnold (in his prime) and Dwayne (the Rock) Johnson (Ahnrock). Wally Don is holding a royal straight flush in spades and Ahnrock has a 7-high nothing which he has been bluffing with. Ahnrock calls and Wally Don lays his unbeatable hand down. If Ahnrock is an honorable player then all is well and good - Wally Don wins and hauls in the huge pile of chips (I didn't mention that there were 4 other players originally in the game). If Ahnrock is NOT an honorable player, he will show his cards, flex his muscles, pat the odd bulge under his left arm and declare himself the winner. Wally Don can either accept the fait accompli or risk serious rearrangement of has features and painful damage to his tender body.

And as for "defunding", would YOU want to be the poor schmuck down at DC Power & Light who turned off the power to 600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Can YOU spell the CinC of ALL the U.S.'s armed forces declairing an emergency and sending in troops to turn the lights back on? I can. Who's going to tell him "No!"?

I figure the boys and girls in the capital building would rather not face that eventuality. Sounds like a great way to kick off a civil war.

Or perhaps one veteran of Chicago politics - BHO - will meekly order a veteran DOJ in-fighter like Holder to prosecute Melson for following order that came from higher up? Really? 'Cause I sure don't. But I AM an optimist, after all.

 

[The-Reaver]

ATF ( American Terrorism Force )

 

[Dokkalfar]

it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate.

Hmm, this might be your problem. As I recall:

shall not be infringed.

 

[Bubbles]

Eric Holder has been testifying before Congress for the last two days about this issue. He's quite adept at giving non-answers to tough questions.

There's some new info courtesy of FOX News, with a whole lot more backstory and links to memo's:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/04/1300-guns-bought-illegally-suspect-buyers-atfs-gunrunner-program/

...a law enforcement source tells Fox News, that ATF undercover agents were acting as the straw buyers and purchasing guns using government-issued false identifications and then providing those guns to cartel traffickers to gain credibility in their undercover roles. In that capacity, the ATF "provided 2, 50 cal. machine guns to traffickers that are loose in Mexico and unaccounted for," the source said.

If the ATF "walked" two transferrable M2's to Mexico then someone needs to be beaten. That said, I strongly suspect they were semi's.