Came across this article about Contempt of Congress.

https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/contempt-of-congress-process-and-penalties.html

Contempt of Congress is a statute that says Congress can issue a CoC charge (2 USC 192).

Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry ... shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192

OK, the penalty needs to be increased. But, there IS a penalty currently, so what can CONGRESS do about it? Just turn it over to the DOJ, who will do nothing?

Nope. There is ANOTHER option.

There are THREE possible methods to penalize someone who has been citied for CoC.

First off, to make a Contempt of Congress CHARGE, it requires only ONE body of the legislature, and by majority rule.

That means the House can issue a Contempt of Congress charge by majority vote, and the Senate has NO SAY in the matter.

Second, if a CoC charge is issued, there are THREE methods to institute punishment. The statute at 2 USC 192 covers only TWO of the methods, and they delegate to the DOJ the authority to handle those two methods: criminal or civil lawsuit.

Of course, the current DOJ will do nothing. But that is alright because there is a THIRD OPTION that the gaslighting RINOs will not be telling you about.

SO WE HAVE TO TELL THEM.

The third option is known as "Congress' Inherent Constitutional Power." Because it is authorized by Congress' Constitutional authority, it falls OUTSIDE of ANY STATUTE (such as 2 USC 192).

IOW: No statute is needed for Congress to implement what the Constitution authorizes it to do.

This "inherent power" has been determined by courts, and was last used in the 1930's.

Here's how it works:

(1) The House (in this case) votes by majority to hold someone (such as Chris Wray) in Contempt of Congress.

(2) Then, the House (and not the Senate) votes by majority to IMPRISON that person. The House then directs its own law enforcer, the Sergeant at Arms (who works for the House, not the Executive Branch), to arrest the person and bring him to the jail on Capitol Hill. There, he is held until he provides the evidence that he is withholding for which he has been held in contempt.

The third, and least exercised, option is referred to as the inherent contempt power of Congress. This isn't found in statutory or constitutional language but rather is inferred by the courts as a function of Congress's legislative powers. The last time this was exercised was in the 1930s, but this was seen more as a way to coerce compliance than as a means of punishment.

The offender, after being cited for contempt of Congress, is tried on the floor of the chamber of Congress invoking the power. If a majority affirms the contempt charge, they may instruct the Sergeant at Arms to arrest the offender and detain them until they comply with the subpoena or until the end of the session. Given the extraordinary nature of congressional detention and its lack of constitutional clarity, it's often seen as a last-ditch -- and unlikely-- effort.

THIS is what we should be pushing on members of Congress.

It's about damn time that they hold SOMEONE RESPONSIBLE FOR VIOLATING THE RULE OF LAW.

This would be a good start.

Those who refuse to uphold the Rule of Law in this way are telegraphing their own TREASON.

Taking an Oath of Office, and then REFUSING to uphold that Oath of Office is TREASON, and the penalty beyond jail time (or death penalty) is found in the Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.