Red:
I find the idea ridiculous because:
...
You don't get it.
A contempt citation will have no teeth, because under current rules of the House, the committee simply passes the matter to the US attorney in DC, who works for the DOJ and Barr, who can refuse to take the contempt case if the House wants criminal charges, and so it too would be largely symbolic.
Holding Mnuchin in contempt is indeed a start, but the Dems should demand Barr allow the US attorney to take the case to court, or else Barr should be held in contempt and impeachment and censure should be voted on, even if the Senate does nothing.
Being impeached has a stigma that neither Mnuchin or Barr want, and just the threat could compel them to resign, or start following the law.
Red:
Re: Congress' statutory power of contempt, you are correct that, as goes the intransigent people working under Trump, the contempt citation would be rather "toothless."
I know that too which I why I provided a link to one of my prior posts that links to two SCOTUS decisions pertaining to Congress' inherent contempt power and to an article that discusses Congress' inherent contempt power.
Did you not read my post and the linked-to content it references -- the two court decisions and Adam Cohen's essay?
I think you didn't because had you, you'd know I most certainly do "get it." In fact, I "got it" and have, on DP, tacitly or expressly indicated Congress avail itself of its inherent contempt power for some time now. In addition to post 14 from "Why/how Trump can violate the law with impunity!", I did so on several occasions:
Aside:
I cannot tell you precisely when I first "got it," but I know it was decades ago, as in well before Trump Admin and campaign personnel first exhibited their evasiveness, intransigence and contemptuousness. I can say I looked into the nature of Congress' power to deal with contemptuous behavior decades ago when I was incensed over the evasiveness Congress forbore regarding the non-answer responses SCOTUS nominees, appointees, various witnesses and even a POTUS gave them. I recall being amazed that Congress let Reagan off with all his "I don't recall" answers, IIRC, some 80+ of them. I knew the instant I saw them do so, I knew I was witnessing a horrendous portent commence into fruition an awful practice. Roughly around that time (early 1990, I think) is when I first looked into Congress' contempt powers and happened upon the document you'll find linked in my Dec 28[SUP]th[/SUP] post.
I did because being from the "no nonsense" background I am, were I a committee chair, speaker or majority leader, I'd have made generous use of the inherent contempt power. I would have because, quite frankly, the notion of one's being evasive when testifying before Congress has never sat right with me. If one doesn't know "this or that" detail (date, exact wording, etc.) one nonetheless knows the substance and context of events in which one participated, so that's what one shares. To do otherwise is, IMO, unpatriotic. Why Congress allows witnesses to do otherwise astounds me.
Blue:
One of the reasons I discussed the inherent contempt power is that the Senate has no role in the House's invocation of them. IIRC, the speaker has a role in the Senate's use of that power. I could check, but were I too, I'd link to the document, and it'd then just be something else you don't read and about which you tell me I don't "get it."
