Can congress FORCE someone to testify?

[jman19]

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.

In other words, she'll lie when it's convenient... nice :roll:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Congress says throw them in jail, and the US Attorney says ?nope.? And nothing happens most likely.

You're forgetting that the NEXT justice department can also prosecute crimes alleged to have been committed against this Congress.

 

[Lemon law]

You are also forgetting about singing Jack Abramoff now sitting in the slammer---he is still being called on to sing---and another congressional aide went down this week. Here some poor smuck thought he would get away with it and had for years---but its still hanging over his head like the sword of Damacles and now it struck. When it comes down to it--Goodling is being given that option. Tell the truth now or dangle slowly slowly in the wind if she declines---knowing all the while--that someday she will be like that congressional aide---and have the full force of the law come down on her like a ton of bricks. I can't speak for Goodling---but I don't think I would want to be looking over my shoulder for the next seven years or so---always wondering if the next time she turns around, some US Marshall will suddenly be there with a warrant for her arrest. She has already done the crime---and she is being offered a chance not to do the time.---------that is the Faustian bargain she has is struck with in her version of truth or consequences. Now she go with God or go to the devil---and she also has look at Scooter Fibby---who tried to stay with the devil----and Cheney--his ole buddy has not even contacted him even once for his troubles.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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.

Dayum! Congress could impeach everyone on this board! Run for the hills!

 

[piasabird]

Congress cant force you to give an answer.

I dont Remember seems to work quite well.

Of course then Congress can appoint a special prosecutor, but that is a giant waste of taxpayer dollars. Remember Kenneth Star???

 

[GOPhatesUSA]

Is it just be or is John a shill for righties?

From John "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"

What about Alberto Gonzales saying he does not recall like a million times?

My god man... Please quit with the lies and spin.

 

[CallMeJoe]

The House of Representatives has a Sergeant at Arms who can be directed to take custody of a reluctant witness if the Justice Department declines to perform its duty in a "Contempt of Congress" case. I assume the Senate has a similar officer. I do not know if they have any suitable facilities for a lengthy detention.

 

[piasabird]

Congress does have subpeona authority. You can be forced to appear. Congress can not however, charge you with a crime, and is not a legal proceeding. However, Congress can also appoint a special prosecutor to investigate criminal activity.

 

[fskimospy]

By the way... the House of Representatives also has a sergeant at arms, which has in the past been sent out to crack skulls for the Congress. (although not in a long time) If push really came to shove they could send out the sergeant at arms to arrest Goodling if she didn't cooperate.

 

[2Xtreme21]

I like how PJ is whining and b*tching about Congress not having the authority to put people in jail, but I haven't heard him complain ONCE about the executive branch being allowed to put people in jail without warrants. "Isn't that a court's job??"

Foot. In. Mouth.

 

[ProfJohn]

We need to remember that we are treading on very tricky ground here.
Congress does not have the power to put people in jail. That power belongs to the courts.
Pelosi or Reid can not stand up there and say ?I hold you in contempt? and slam down the gravel and lock someone up.

I am not sure what congress would do if she got up there and refused to answer any questions.
Looking at wikipedia there are examples of people held in contempt for refusing to hand over documents, but none for people refusing to answer questions.

Now during the Baseball steroids thing several baseball players refused to appear before congress, or refused to answer certain questions and essentially got away with it.

I still expect her to answer questions, but I doubt we will learn anything new.

 

[Lemon law]

Non Prof John,

The stakes are a wee might higher than a mere blow job, a few drug using baseball players, or a drug using radio talk show host.

Learn it and live it.---or events will live it for you. Even if you are and remain in a state of Limbaugh denial.---you can fence yourself in and can't fence reality out.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Non Prof John,

The stakes are a wee might higher than a mere blow job, a few drug using baseball players, or a drug using radio talk show host.

Learn it and live it.---or events will live it for you. Even if you are and remain in a state of Limbaugh denial.---you can fence yourself in and can't fence reality out.

You guys on the left always seem to forget that the charge for lying about a blow job in a court of law is still contempt of court, lying under oath and perjury.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Non Prof John,

The stakes are a wee might higher than a mere blow job, a few drug using baseball players, or a drug using radio talk show host.

Learn it and live it.---or events will live it for you. Even if you are and remain in a state of Limbaugh denial.---you can fence yourself in and can't fence reality out.

You guys on the left always seem to forget that the charge for lying about a blow job in a court of law is still contempt of court, lying under oath and perjury.

Sure throw Willy in the brig for a few years /shrug.

In the meantime starting wars of aggression is a hanging offence.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We need to remember that we are treading on very tricky ground here.
Congress does not have the power to put people in jail. That power belongs to the courts.
Pelosi or Reid can not stand up there and say ?I hold you in contempt? and slam down the gravel and lock someone up.

I am not sure what congress would do if she got up there and refused to answer any questions.
Looking at wikipedia there are examples of people held in contempt for refusing to hand over documents, but none for people refusing to answer questions.

Now during the Baseball steroids thing several baseball players refused to appear before congress, or refused to answer certain questions and essentially got away with it.

I still expect her to answer questions, but I doubt we will learn anything new.

Your just making crap up. Congress does have the power to put people in jail for refusing to give testimony before Congress in a Congressional inquiry, and the Supreme Court has clearly agreed that they do have this power in past cases on this matter. You might find limits to Congress's power and the courts intervening if they held someone in contempt when they clearly were fully cooperating with Congress, but that's not the hypothetical situation we are discussing here. You can certainly find cases where people were held in contempt by Congress for refusing to testify if you actually bothered to research the issue.

You asked a question, got a very clear answer, and are now simply engaging in willful denial since you don't like the answer you got. Reality doesn't change just because you wish it so.

 

[Lemon law]

You guys on the left always seem to forget that the charge for lying about a blow job in a court of law is still contempt of court, lying under oath and perjury.

Well, for what its worth you right wingers got Billie Clinton's law license--declare your victory and get over it---meanwhile back at the ranch---people are dying in droves everyday due to GWB&co.

In the grand scheme of things---which is more important to current history non Prof John?

Get over it Jonney---Bill Clinton is ancient history---and us lefties desire the same for GWB&co.---and for every sin of Clinton --Gwb&co. makes those Clinton sins pale into total insignificance.

So what if Clinton was not perfect---what has that to do with today?---next thing we know you will be winning the Vietnam war, resurrecting Nixon, and unstabbing Julius Caesar.

 

[EXman]

<clinton voice> I don't recall</clinton voice>

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: EXman
<clinton voice> I don't recall</clinton voice>

< Bullsh8 necon apologist voice > [ (Identify Bush scandal here) ] is Clinton's fault. < /Bullsh8 necon apologist voice >

 

[1EZduzit]

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.

You mean one of the remaining "loyal bushie" US attorneys that haven't been fired. You think they might feel a little heat to from the top to say "nope"??

Eventually your circles of logic will get tighter and tighter until, like a plane in a spiral you stall out and crash.

 

[Lemon law]

Does anyone even notice that non-Prof John's argument rests on the GWB&co. appointed US attorney being totally corrupt and unethical.---which is fine by non-Prof John
and amounts to nothing but a double standard.

Have you no shame Jonney---have you no shame?

We shall remember this next time you get all worked up about some real or imagined democratic misdeed.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Does anyone even notice that non-Prof John's argument rests on the GWB&co. appointed US attorney being totally corrupt and unethical.---which is fine by non-Prof John
and amounts to nothing but a double standard.

Have you no shame Jonney---have you no shame?

We shall remember this next time you get all worked up about some real or imagined democratic misdeed.

It seems to be SOP for todays Repugs, don't do as we do, do as we say.