Can congress FORCE someone to testify?

[ProfJohn]

Ok so they get Goodling up there and start asking her questions, does she have to answer them?
It is congress, not a court of law so I am not sure what powers they really have. Hold her in contempt of congress? Ummm so?
I am not sure they can throw her in jail for refusing to answer, does anyone know if they have that power?

Of course she could just do the ?I don?t recall? thing like Hillary Clinton did at least 50 times when she went before congress.

The question is can they really get something out of her if she does not want to help them?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok so they get Goodling up there and start asking her questions, does she have to answer them?
It is congress, not a court of law so I am not sure what powers they really have. Hold her in contempt of congress? Ummm so?

I am not sure they can throw her in jail for refusing to answer, does anyone know if they have that power?

Actually Congress has allot of the powers of a court in this sort of situation, although they can't usually put someone on criminal trial on their own.

Investigative hearings

Investigative hearings share some of the characteristics of legislative and oversight hearings. The difference lies in Congress?s stated determination to investigate, usually when there is a suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of public officials acting in their official capacity, or private citizens whose activities suggest the need for a legislative remedy. Congress?s authority to investigate is broad and it has exercised this authority since the earliest days of the republic. Its most famous inquiries are benchmarks in American history: Credit Mobilier, Teapot Dome, Army-McCarthy, Watergate, and Iran-Contra. Investigative hearings often lead to legislation to address the problems uncovered. Judicial activities in the same area of Congress?s investigation may precede, run simultaneously with, or follow such inquiries...

Subpoenas and Depositions

Most individuals respond favorably to an invitation to testify, believing it to be a valuable opportunity to communicate and publicize their views on a question of public policy. However, if a person will not come by invitation alone, a committee or subcommittee may require an appearance through the issuance of a subpoena (Rule XXVI, paragraph 1). Committees also may subpoena correspondence, books, papers, and other documents. Subpoenas are issued infrequently, and most often in the course of investigative hearings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_hearing

Contempt of Congress is a long established Congressional power.

History

In the late 1790s, contempt of Congress was considered an "implied power" of the legislature. Early Congresses issued contempt citations against numerous individuals for a variety of actions. Some early instances of contempt of Congress included citations against:

* Robert Randall, for an attempt to bribe Representative William Smith of South Carolina in 1795
* William Duane, a newspaper editor who refused to answer Senate questions in 1800
* Nathaniel Rounsavell, another newspaper editor for releasing sensitive information to the press in 1812.

In 1821, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821) which held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it." The historical interpretation that bribery of a Senator or Representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law which made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

Since contempt of Congress is a criminal offense, those who refuse to testify after receiving a subpoena can end up being arrested and thrown in jail. The US Department of Justice is supposed to coordinate such an arrest and filing contempt of Congress charges.

There is also an "Inherent Contempt" procedure if the Department of Justice refuses to cooperate, although such a situation would likely create a significant Constitutional crisis.

Inherent Contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. 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.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

 

[Lemon law]

Non Prof John is somewhat correct that the contempt powers of congress can be abused--- the house committee on un-American activities was used as part of the McCarthy witch hunts
and was the bane of us liberals---but Goodling is trapped in more than imaginary witchcraft---and if she does not sing like ze bird---her savior GWB may not be around long enough to pardon her sad and sorry ass. Congress now means business and will use contempt of congress in a heartbeat. They have more scandals than anyone can shake a stick at and will roll them off on a clockwork schedule---and if someone gives up the info before she does---her get out of jail free card could become suddenly worthless.

And she may win prison time for both contempt of congress and for the ethics laws she violated. And unlike Libby, with contempt of congress I believe there is no interim period of freedom. Its go to jail, go straight to jail, and no free parking.

Goodling may be a fairly small fish---but she will be the object they play tug of war with---and she better look out for herself. Because a mountain of evidence has already put her in criminal peril.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Even if she's (accidentally?) committed crimes for the Bush administration, she has been granted immunity.

So the only reason she'd have to remain silent is to conceal the improper activities of others in the Bush administration.

The question is can they really get something out of her if she does not want to help them?

This assumes the Bush administration has something to hide. As supporters of warrantless domestic wiretapping would say, the innocent have nothing to fear.

Bush should personally urge her to cooperate fully with congress, to clear up any little misunderstandings and remove all doubts of his administration's complete innocence.

 

[Jhhnn]

PJ never tires of the whole "But Clinton!" routine...

Hillary couldn't recall specifics of mundane legal filings that took place many years previously, Gonzales couldn't remember policy and personnel decisions made a few months prior... Her memory is a lot more defensible than Gonzales'.

Much of what Hillary claimed to not remember was covered under attorney client confidentiality, anyway, a defense not available to Ms Goodling...

 

[blackangst1]

All they can do is force them onto the stand. The 5th amendment applies to everyone.

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
All they can do is force them onto the stand. The 5th amendment applies to everyone.

excluding members of the military. Funny how little the Constitution protects our military who are sworn to protect it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: blackangst1
All they can do is force them onto the stand. The 5th amendment applies to everyone.

excluding members of the military. Funny how little the Constitution protects our military who are sworn to protect it.

Well, technically you are right, save a court martial

Since Goodling, in this case, was only a laison, she is protected by the 5th.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok so they get Goodling up there and start asking her questions, does she have to answer them?
It is congress, not a court of law so I am not sure what powers they really have. Hold her in contempt of congress? Ummm so?
I am not sure they can throw her in jail for refusing to answer, does anyone know if they have that power?

Of course she could just do the ?I don?t recall? thing like Hillary Clinton did at least 50 times when she went before congress.

The question is can they really get something out of her if she does not want to help them?

She will find another excuse not to testify now that the "perjury trap" excuse has been nullified.

And dude, you could have said "like many politicians have done before" instead of singling out Hillary. Personally I don't like her, she is a politician which means she's a liar and a cheat, but those do seem to be prerequisites for holding public office.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
All they can do is force them onto the stand. The 5th amendment applies to everyone.

She can't invoke the 5th, she was granted immunity yesterday.

She can refuse to testify, but with immunity that's contempt of congress and prison time (wave "hi" to Susan McDougal).

Of course if the Bush administration has nothing to hide, there is no reason for her not to testify.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok so they get Goodling up there and start asking her questions, does she have to answer them?
It is congress, not a court of law so I am not sure what powers they really have. Hold her in contempt of congress? Ummm so?
I am not sure they can throw her in jail for refusing to answer, does anyone know if they have that power?

Of course she could just do the ?I don?t recall? thing like Hillary Clinton did at least 50 times when she went before congress.

The question is can they really get something out of her if she does not want to help them?

She will find another excuse not to testify now that the "perjury trap" excuse has been nullified.

And dude, you could have said "like many politicians have done before" instead of singling out Hillary. Personally I don't like her, she is a politician which means she's a liar and a cheat, but those do seem to be prerequisites for holding public office.

PJ is enamored with the two wrongs make a right logical fallacy. It's practically his calling card. Using his flawed logic, if Bill Clinton lied under oath it must be okay for Goodling to lie under oath too!

 

[ProfJohn]

Sorry Dave, but Susan McDougal was put in jail by a Federal Judge.

I don?t think congress has the power to put anyone in jail.

Wouldn?t allowing congress to throw people in jail undermine the idea of separation of powers?
Congress passes laws
The Executive enforces laws
The Courts are arbiters of the laws

If congress can throw people in jail for ?contempt of congress? what would stop a run away congress from abusing that power. Say McCarthy throwing people in jail for refusing to ?name names??

Don?t think about it terms of this specific incident, but in terms of a broader context. Do we want congress running around throwing people into jail over political matters?
If there was a law broke and the need to throw someone in jail then that is the job of a prosecutor acting with a judge to make that decision.

 

[Phokus]

Sounds like ProfJohn is in his 'wishful thinking' mode again and hoping Bush/Rove get away scott free.

 

[Arcex]

But then why can the executive branch throw people in jail? Wouldn't that defeat the same purpose of letting another branch do it?


Oh wait, I'm sorry, they don't get thrown in jail, they get shipped off to a black prison or extraordinarily extradited to a foreign country to be abused off of U.S. property, my bad...


I know, I had to stretch to put a "Bush is evil" reference in here, but the point remains. He's changed laws to allow the government to unlawfully (in my mind) detain people for little or no reason, if he can do it, I say Congress can do it if people are interfering with a federal investigation.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sorry Dave, but Susan McDougal was put in jail by a Federal Judge.

I don?t think congress has the power to put anyone in jail.

Wouldn?t allowing congress to throw people in jail undermine the idea of separation of powers?
Congress passes laws
The Executive enforces laws
The Courts are arbiters of the laws

If congress can throw people in jail for ?contempt of congress? what would stop a run away congress from abusing that power. Say McCarthy throwing people in jail for refusing to ?name names??

Don?t think about it terms of this specific incident, but in terms of a broader context. Do we want congress running around throwing people into jail over political matters?
If there was a law broke and the need to throw someone in jail then that is the job of a prosecutor acting with a judge to make that decision.

Ask and you shall receive my friend:

"Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney; according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.

The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. Those penalities are enforced upon conviction, even if the Congress which initiatied the contempt citation has expired.

The statutory procedure has generally been used by Congress since 1935. But its use does leave some things unclear. The law pronounces the "duty" of U.S. Attorney is to empanel a grand jury and for its action on the matter. But dispute exists over whether or not the Congress can properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action, as the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch and ultimately reports to the President. (The Courts have been reluctant to decide this question, claiming it is a "political question" for resolution by the elected branches of government.)"

Text

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sorry Dave, but Susan McDougal was put in jail by a Federal Judge.

I don?t think congress has the power to put anyone in jail.

Wouldn?t allowing congress to throw people in jail undermine the idea of separation of powers?
Congress passes laws
The Executive enforces laws
The Courts are arbiters of the laws

If congress can throw people in jail for ?contempt of congress? what would stop a run away congress from abusing that power. Say McCarthy throwing people in jail for refusing to ?name names??

Don?t think about it terms of this specific incident, but in terms of a broader context. Do we want congress running around throwing people into jail over political matters?
If there was a law broke and the need to throw someone in jail then that is the job of a prosecutor acting with a judge to make that decision.

Ask and you shall receive my friend:

"Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney; according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.

The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. Those penalities are enforced upon conviction, even if the Congress which initiatied the contempt citation has expired.

The statutory procedure has generally been used by Congress since 1935. But its use does leave some things unclear. The law pronounces the "duty" of U.S. Attorney is to empanel a grand jury and for its action on the matter. But dispute exists over whether or not the Congress can properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action, as the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch and ultimately reports to the President. (The Courts have been reluctant to decide this question, claiming it is a "political question" for resolution by the elected branches of government.)"

Text

Well the answer is clear, send the case to Federal court.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok so they get Goodling up there and start asking her questions, does she have to answer them?
It is congress, not a court of law so I am not sure what powers they really have. Hold her in contempt of congress? Ummm so?
I am not sure they can throw her in jail for refusing to answer, does anyone know if they have that power?

Of course she could just do the ?I don?t recall? thing like Hillary Clinton did at least 50 times when she went before congress.

The question is can they really get something out of her if she does not want to help them?

Are you pleading ignorance, Poofjohn?

Sit in jail or testify. Taking the fifth won't let you off. Playing "stuuppid" or "can't recaull" worked for the AG Goonsales, right?

 

[Lemon law]

Sit in jail or testify. Taking the fifth won't let you off. Playing "stuuppid" or "can't recaull" worked for the AG Goonsales, right?

But it won't work for Goodling---not with an immunity from Prosecution case---thats a totally different animal---as for Gonzales, its only worked so far.
Assuming this scandal is even close to over would be very stupid----and just that one scandal leads to finding others---and more are rolling down the pike every day.
And unless I miss my guess---coming scandals will move past mere dubious ethics and possibly criminal actions to certainly totally morally bankrupt and clearly criminal.

As for Goodlings Regency law license---thats likely to be ancient history---and Alberto could also end up disbarred from the practice of law. These United States do have a long proud history of jailing or impeaching our AG's when they are up to no good---the last victim was Honest John Mitchell.

And the other thing with an immunity from Prosecution deal---there is no taking it half way and later saying this was not part of the deal---its whole hog or nothing.---and Goodling better fess up everything or she can get prosecuted for things she did not fess up to.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The question is can they really get something out of her if she does not want to help them?

They can, unless she wants to spend a lot of time in jail for contempt of Congress.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The question is can they really get something out of her if she does not want to help them?

They can, unless she wants to spend a lot of time in jail for contempt of Congress.

Luckily for us someone has already given details on what this requires and it comes down to a political game.
Congress says throw them in jail, and the US Attorney says ?nope.? And nothing happens most likely.

But I doubt it will come to this. Mrs. Goodling will answer the questions she wants to answer and play the ?I don?t recall? game with the one she doesn?t want to answer.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The question is can they really get something out of her if she does not want to help them?

They can, unless she wants to spend a lot of time in jail for contempt of Congress.

Luckily for us someone has already given details on what this requires and it comes down to a political game.
Congress says throw them in jail, and the US Attorney says ?nope.? And nothing happens most likely.

But I doubt it will come to this. Mrs. Goodling will answer the questions she wants to answer and play the ?I don?t recall? game with the one she doesn?t want to answer.

I would think that, if that were to happen, AG AG should/would be impeached for dereliction of duty.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the House has the ?sole Power of Impeachment[,]? and contains no textual limitation on who may be impeached. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 gives the senate the sole power to try impeachments

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, if that scenario played out, you would be rooting for a pardon because he would have been the victim of another "dem witch hunt" and not actually responsible for inactions related to his duty as AG.

 

[Lemon law]

Non Prof John is probably about half right here---But I doubt it will come to this. Mrs. Goodling will answer the questions she wants to answer and play the ?I don?t recall? game with the one she doesn?t want to answer.

Sometimes it works---but you can ask both Martha and Libby what happens when you think you are way too smart---sooner or later they fetch up on the horns of a dilemma.
And if you think that congress will rely on Gonzales's justice department to administer justice to Goodling---please seek psychiatric help for delusions---this will demand a special
prosecutor and Congress will insist on it.

Face the facts---Goodling just is not near smart enough---and since she may be one of the keys to Rove---we may finally see that Rove ain't near smart enough either---and speak of
Karl---the hounds are after him from at least three directions---and if they get Rove from another direction---Goodlings stay out of jail card just deflated.

Goodling was smart enough to know what the ethical rules were---and went ahead and violated them anyway---and now she is truly and duly caught.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
But I doubt it will come to this. Mrs. Goodling will answer the questions she wants to answer and play the ?I don?t recall? game with the one she doesn?t want to answer.

If she does, she'll be cited for contempt. At most, all they have to show is any previous record of her knowledge of whatever she claims she "doesn't recall," and giving her immunity means she can no longer try to hide behind the Fifth Amendment.

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee has alredy written to Gonzales asking him to supplement his testimony "with answers to those questions for which you responded that you could not recall or did not know."

If you Bushwhackos really think Goodling would be doing anyone any service or favors by trying, you're as sick as those lying administration asshholes. They can wriggle squirm like worms on a fish hook, but the more they lie and dissemble, the worse they look, and the longer they'll keep the spotlight shining brightly on their corruption.

 

[Lemon law]

The other non Prof John delusion that needs to be pointed out is that GWB&co. has placed his personnel in key parts of the executive branch---but still there are plenty good and truly decent Republicans and democrats srill working for the executive branch---and in fact the bulk fall in that category. And while it may be true that one rotten apple will spoil a whole barrel of good ones---its frequently true that one good apple will spoil a whole barrel of rotten ones.

And the dems will work with those good apples who are now doubly emboldened---and they know where the bodies are buried and will blow the whistle if pressured by the rotten apples.
All they have to do is do their job.

Let the sun shine in---the truth will prevail.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Luckily for us someone has already given details on what this requires and it comes down to a political game.
Congress says throw them in jail, and the US Attorney says ?nope.? And nothing happens most likely.

As I previously noted, Congress could arrest her on their own if the US Attorney pulled that, and simply impeach the US Attorney general. The court system has clearly stated that Congress has this power when it comes to investigative hearings.

If the Bush administration acted in such an outrageous manner, all but the most extreme partisans would turn against them.

Congress indisputably has the power to put someone in jail for the refusal to give testimony, and the Attorney General and Federal Judges are supposed to cooperate in doing so. It would create a serious crisis if they refused to help, but Congress is clearly supposed to have to power to arrange for someone to be jailed for contempt, with the only cases where refusal might be appropriate would be in a situation where the contempt charge was actually implemented for something other than refusing to testify at a hearing. (This is effectively the check in the system if Congress tried to really abuse its power along with the practical long term political consequences for the Congressmen involved, Congress can also only continue to jail someone for the rest of their session if the Attorney General and the courts are not involved.)

On top of everything else noted, if its not even remotely plausible that someone doesn't remember a specific sequence when questioned during a Congressional hearing, they definitely can be cited for contempt of Congress. (If the event was a fairly recent extremely unusual and significant and important situation for the witness and they obviously recognized that at the time, its not plausible they wouldn't remember anything at all about what happened.)