Mueller dissatisfied with Barr's 4 page memo

[_moksha]

Barr lying to Congress over the memo is of no concern to Republicans, but it should shock and alarm them. Perhaps this is evidence of Republican Senators abusing prescription drugs.

[_MeDotOrg]

With respect to the standoff between Barr and the House, some people are citing a 1935 Supreme Court decision giving the House the power of arrest in such cases:

Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935)
Jurney v. MacCracken

No. 339 * Argued January 7, 8, 1935 * Decided February 4, 1935 {294 U.S. 125}

Syllabus

1. The power of a House of Congress to punish a private citizen who obstructs the performance of its legislative duties is not limited to the removal of an existing obstruction, but continues after the obstruction has ceased or its removal has become impossible. P. 294 U. S. 147.

Held in this case that the Senate had power to cite for contempt a witness charged with having permitted the removal and destruction of papers which he had been subpoenaed to produce.

2. The Act making refusal to answer or to produce papers before either House, or one of its committees, a misdemeanor (R.S. § 102) did not impair, but supplemented, the power of the House affected to punish for such contempt. P. 294 U. S. 151.

3. Punishment, purely as such, through contempt proceedings, legislative or judicial, is not precluded because punishment may also be inflicted for the same act as a statutory offence. P. 294 U. S. 151.

4. Where a proceeding for contempt is within the jurisdiction of a House of Congress, the questions whether the person arrested is guilty or has so far purged himself that he does not deserve punishment are questions for that House to decide, and which cannot be inquired into by a court by a writ of habeas corpus. P. 294 U. S. 152.

63 App.D.C. 342 72 F. 2d 560, reversed.

Supreme Court, D.C., affirmed.

Certiorari, 293 U.S. 543, to review the reversal of a judgment discharging a writ of habeas corpus by which the above-named respondent sought to gain his release from the custody of the above-named petitioner, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate.

Page 294 U. S. 143

I would love to hear another legal opinion, but with respect to the defined crime of refusing to testify, the Court decided that those "are questions for that House to decide, and which cannot be inquired into by a court by a writ of habeas corpus." This would seem to give the House broad authority with respect to penalties it may wish to impose on the Attorney General.

Again, this is new to me, so anyone with more legal expertise, I welcome some elucidation.

[_Res Ipsa]

The case you cited involved a private citizen. I’m not sure the result would be the same for the AG. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.