L
Liberalhere
Guest
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:bJ6dnUEPfe1MnRrbnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com:
> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>> news:eNSdnX1ElL4ldhnbnZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:1J-
>>>> dnf6aOcVA_BnbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Deliri wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE
>>>>>> SUBPOENA, WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE
>>>>>> SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO
>>>>>> FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?
>>>>> Congress has no such authority.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Facts one, Hartung zero.
>>>>
>>>> "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of
>>>> the United States Congress or one of its committees.
>>>> Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or
>>>> to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution
>>>> of contempt to its parent chamber. Following a contempt
>>>> citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the
>>>> Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the
>>>> floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the
>>>> presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the
>>>> House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment
>>>> reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from
>>>> the contempt citation.)"
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
>>> I stand corrected.
>>>
>>
>> If Gonzales is found to be in Contempt of Congress, should his
>> license to practice law be revoked? IIRC, there is a ethical and
>> moral to being granted a license; it's not simply passing the bar
>> exam.
>
> Given the partisan nature of the current Congress, probably not.
Ha! "Partisan"? Try comparing it to the previous Congresses over the last
twelve years.
news:bJ6dnUEPfe1MnRrbnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com:
> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>> news:eNSdnX1ElL4ldhnbnZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:1J-
>>>> dnf6aOcVA_BnbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Deliri wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE
>>>>>> SUBPOENA, WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE
>>>>>> SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO
>>>>>> FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?
>>>>> Congress has no such authority.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Facts one, Hartung zero.
>>>>
>>>> "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of
>>>> the United States Congress or one of its committees.
>>>> Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or
>>>> to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution
>>>> of contempt to its parent chamber. Following a contempt
>>>> citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the
>>>> Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the
>>>> floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the
>>>> presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the
>>>> House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment
>>>> reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from
>>>> the contempt citation.)"
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
>>> I stand corrected.
>>>
>>
>> If Gonzales is found to be in Contempt of Congress, should his
>> license to practice law be revoked? IIRC, there is a ethical and
>> moral to being granted a license; it's not simply passing the bar
>> exam.
>
> Given the partisan nature of the current Congress, probably not.
Ha! "Partisan"? Try comparing it to the previous Congresses over the last
twelve years.