Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Contempt: It's been used before, including on Obama officials"
It's been used before, including on Obama officials
Congress rarely holds people in contempt. But it has done so in the past to force witnesses to appear or produce documents.
The last time Congress used its inherent contempt powers was in 1934 when the Senate held William MacCracken, a former member of Herbert Hoover's administration, after he refused a subpoena. The Senate had nowhere to hold MacCracken so he was imprisoned at a hotel, according to the Washington Post.
But Congress has voted on contempt charges more recently, even discussing using it against members of the Trump administration last year after former White House adviser Steve Bannon refused to answer questions.
Other examples include in 2012 when the House voted to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for declining to provide documents and in 2014 after IRS official Lois Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a congressional hearing. In both cases, the Justice Department declined to bring criminal cases.
Congress rarely holds people in contempt. But it has done so in the past to force witnesses to appear or produce documents.
The last time Congress used its inherent contempt powers was in 1934 when the Senate held William MacCracken, a former member of Herbert Hoover's administration, after he refused a subpoena. The Senate had nowhere to hold MacCracken so he was imprisoned at a hotel, according to the Washington Post.
But Congress has voted on contempt charges more recently, even discussing using it against members of the Trump administration last year after former White House adviser Steve Bannon refused to answer questions.
Other examples include in 2012 when the House voted to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for declining to provide documents and in 2014 after IRS official Lois Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a congressional hearing. In both cases, the Justice Department declined to bring criminal cases.
So the Republicans DID file contempt charges against AG Holder and against Lois Lerner. Then there's THIS:
While a contempt charge normally moves through the criminal justice system and the courts, there's one final method that has gotten attention in recent days, given the president's reluctance to cooperate with congressional investigations.
Lawmakers can elect to pursue a contempt-of-Congress charge in an impeachment proceeding, which is a political process to remove the president from office that moves through Congress instead of the courts.
A contempt-of-Congress charge was one of the three articles of impeachment filed against President Richard Nixon in 1974 after he defied subpoenas for documents and information that Congress said it needed for an impeachment inquiry.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/03/contempt-congress-william-barr-democrats/3647317002/
Contributing: Associated Press
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 2131 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (15)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Contempt: It's been used before, including on Obama officials" (Original Post)
Honeycombe8
May 2019
OP
Not sure that makes a difference. But McCracken's contempt was for refusing to appear.
Honeycombe8
May 2019
#2
Well here's an ever better discussion at another site on the history and use of Congress' contempt..
PoliticAverse
May 2019
#5
still_one
(92,187 posts)1. but it wasn't for refusing to testify
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)2. Not sure that makes a difference. But McCracken's contempt was for refusing to appear.
Disregarding a subpoena, whether for appearance at a hearing or producing documents, seems to me to be the same thing. It's disregarding Congress' authority to issue that particular subpoena.
In any case, McCracken's contempt charge was for refusing to appear.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)3. See...
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)4. I can't read WaPo articles...
except after I clear cookies, which I can't do right now. If you could post any part of it, that would be helpful. Otherwise, I'd have to try to read it later.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)5. Well here's an ever better discussion at another site on the history and use of Congress' contempt..