So, to answer your question: Yes, the attorney general, and any other appointment official, can be impeached by congress. Yes, the Constitution stipulates that Congress has the power to impeach the President, Vice President and all civil officers.
Learn more about the powers and responsibilities of attorneys general. The People’s Lawyer is a biweekly podcast from NAAG that explores the role of state and territory attorneys general as chief legal officers and their work protecting the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.
(Reuters) - U.S. House Democrats threatened on Thursday to hold Attorney General William Barr in “contempt of Congress” for not complying with a subpoena to hand over an unredacted version of the Mueller report. What does that mean?
If convicted of either crime, a person could be looking at up to five years in prison. This means that if a person is found to have lied during a congressional hearing or investigation, or simply lied to an FBI or other federal agent, actual jail time could result. Today, Attorney General Jeff Sessions' faced allegations of lying to Congress.
Following a contempt citation, the person cited 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 subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, ...
Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."
These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." Since 1789, the Senate has expelled only fifteen of its entire membership.
The United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 5) gives the House of Representatives the power to expel any member by a two-thirds vote.
The President in the executive branch can veto a law, but the legislative branch can override that veto with enough votes. The legislative branch has the power to approve Presidential nominations, control the budget, and can impeach the President and remove him or her from office.
In part (e) the response earned 1 point for explaining how oversight hearings enable Congress to limit the power of the bureaucracy by stating, “If a bureaucratic head or agency enforces a law or policy against the wishes of Congress, Congress can hold hearings against bureaucratic individuals in order to hold them ...
Hearings and investigations conducted by standing or special congressional committees. Consulting with or getting reports directly from the president. Giving its advice and consent for certain high-level presidential nominations and for treaties. Impeachment proceedings conducted in the House and tried in the Senate.
Fusfoo Five: Politics (Things Congress Cannot Do)CREATE EX POST FACTO LAWS. “Ex post facto” is a Latin phrase meaning “after the fact”, so to create an ex post facto law means to declare something a crime after the act has been committed. ... PASS A BILL OF ATTAINDER. ... MAKE LAWS THAT CONTRADICT THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 prohibits the Congress from passing either bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, in the same fashion that Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 does for the states.
The Constitution lists powers that are denied to Congress (Article I, Section 9). The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making laws that limit individual liberties. Under the system of checks and balances, the president can veto a law passed by Congress, or the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional.
Nadler already had rejected Barr's offer to read the less-redacted version because it applied only to a dozen House members and the deal "would not permit them to discuss it with other Members of Congress who all have top security clearances."
Harkins says if Congress charges Barr with contempt, "You can easily see the court cases for this lasting more than 18 months."
Stanford law professor Michael McConnell wrote in The Washington Post about the parallels between Barr and Holder. The Obama administration said disclosing information about executive decision-making would "inhibit the candor" of officials inside the administration. An assistant attorney general falsely told Congress the Obama administration was unaware of Fast and Furious -- a claim the administration had to pull back -- and Holder said he would provide the subpoenaed documents only if the committee agreed to close the investigation.
Barr, however, did forward the committee a less-redacted version of the report.
The White House resisted House subpoenas on other fronts, too.
Barr did testify last week before the GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. He was set to appear before the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee, but then the committee demanded Barr take questions from staff lawyers as well as elected members. Barr balked.
House Democrats threatened on Thursday to hold Attorney General William Barr in “contempt of Congress” for not complying with a subpoena to hand over an unredacted version of the Mueller report. What does that mean?
In 1927, the high court said the Senate acted lawfully in sending its deputy sergeant-at-arms to Ohio to arrest and detain the brother of the then-attorney general, who had refused to testify about a bribery scheme known as the Teapot Dome scandal.
If a majority supports the resolution, then another vote will be held by the entire chamber. The Democrats have majority control of the House; Trump’s Republican Party holds the Senate. Only a majority of the 435-member House needs to support a contempt finding for one to be reached.
For this reason, in modern times Congress has opted for a third and final approach to enforcing a contempt finding: getting its lawyers to bring a civil lawsuit asking a judge to rule that compliance is required.
Failure to comply with such an order can trigger a “contempt of court” finding , enforced through daily fines and even imprisonment, Griffin said.
But this option is also unlikely to be pursued, at least when it comes to subpoenas against executive branch officials, given that federal prosecutors are part of the branch’s Justice Department.
Congress’ power to issue subpoenas, while broad, is not unlimited. The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain.
Congress has significant, if time-consuming, powers to demand witnesses and documents. One of these is the contempt citation.
The Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s power to issue subpoenas, saying in order to write laws it also needs to be able to investigate.
In 1927, the high court said the Senate acted lawfully in sending its deputy sergeant-at-arms to Ohio to arrest and detain the brother of the then-attorney general, who had refused to testify about a bribery scheme known as the Teapot Dome scandal.
If a majority supports the resolution, then another vote will be held by the entire chamber. The Democrats have majority control of the House; Trump’s Republican Party holds the Senate. Only a majority of the 435-member House needs to support a contempt finding for one to be reached. After a contempt vote, Congress has powers to enforce a subpoena.
For this reason, in modern times Congress has opted for a third and final approach to enforcing a contempt finding: getting its lawyers to bring a civil lawsuit asking a judge to rule that compliance is required.
Failure to comply with such an order can trigger a “contempt of court” finding , enforced through daily fines and even imprisonment, Griffin said.
There is a criminal law that specifically prohibits flouting a congressional subpoena. Advertisement - story continues below. But this option is also unlikely to be pursued, at least when it comes to subpoenas against executive branch officials, given that federal prosecutors are part of the branch’s Justice Department.
Either chamber of Congress may start the process in a committee (such as the House Judiciary Committee) and may rely on the legislative counsel's office like the Office of Senate Legal Counsel for help drafting a contempt resolution. Once the resolution is drafted and voted out of committee, it then goes to the full House or Senate (depending on where it originates) for a simple majority vote. Participation of the other chamber of Congress isn't required. If the resolution passes, the individual is formally cited for contempt.
It states that anyone summoned by either house of Congress "to give testimony or to produce papers" regarding any matter of inquiry who "willfully makes default" or "refuses to answer any questions pertinent to the question under inquiry" has committed contempt of Congress.
Attorney's Office refuses to prosecute a case where an individual has been cited for contempt of Congress, lawmakers may pursue a civil suit in federal court. Generally, these actions claim that the members of Congress requesting testimony or documents were denied the ability to exercise their constitutional duties. The court then decides whether the individual cited for contempt of Congress must comply with the congressional subpoena.
Gorsuch, the first U.S. agency director to be charged with contempt of Congress, resigned her post several months later. The term contempt typically refers to an individual's open disrespect of the authority of a court, such as the refusal to comply with a court order or the disruption of court proceedings.
House of Representatives in connection with an investigation. Since the documents were the subject of a House committee subpoena, her refusal prompted legislators to take punitive action. Ultimately, the House voted to cite her with contempt of Congress.
Inherent Contempt Power of Congress. 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 ...
Democratic then-President Barack Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, refused to comply, citing a doctrine called “executive privilege.” The House voted to hold him in contempt in a rare instance of Congress taking such action against a sitting member of a president’s Cabinet.
If lawmakers want to punish someone who ignores a congressional subpoena they typically first hold the offender “in contempt of Congress,” legal experts said.
Cummings has said the records are related to its investigation of allegations that Trump inflated or deflated financial statements for potentially improper purposes.
For this reason, in modern times Congress has opted for a third and final approach to enforcing a contempt finding: getting its lawyers to bring a civil lawsuit asking a judge to rule that compliance is required.
Failure to comply with such an order can trigger a “contempt of court” finding , enforced through daily fines and even imprisonment, Griffin said.
The Democrats have majority control of the House; Trump’s Republican Party holds the Senate. So any contempt finding in months ahead is likely to come from the House.
The Supreme Court said in an 1821 case that Congress has the “inherent authority” to arrest and detain recalcitrant witnesses.
As chief legal officers of the states, commonwealths, District of Columbia, and territories of the United States, the role of an attorney general is to serve as counselor to state government agencies and legislatures, and as a representative of the public interest.
The People’s Lawyer is a biweekly podcast from NAAG that explores the role of state and territory attorneys general as chief legal officers and their work protecting the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.
Issuing formal opinions to state agencies. Acting as public advocates in areas such as child support enforcement, consumer protections, antitrust and utility regulation. Proposing legislation. Enforcing federal and state environmental laws. Representing the state and state agencies before the state and federal courts.
When a person is prosecuted, there are separate federal regulations for perjury specifically and lying to the feds generally. Under the United States Code, title 18, section 1001, a person who knowingly or willingly makes a material statement that is false, or fraudulent, to the feds, is guilty of a crime. What comes as a surprise to many is that unlike section 1621, section 1001 does not require that a person be under oath.
If convicted of either crime, a person could be looking at up to five years in prison. This means that if a person is found to have lied during a congressional hearing or investigation, or simply lied to an FBI or other federal agent, actual jail time could result.
Section 1001 has a long and distinguished history, and has been used against notable, convicted liars Rod Blagojevich, Scooter Libby, Bernard Madoff, Martha Stewart, and Jeffrey Skilling. Furthermore, some might recall that President Bill Clinton faced impeachment not because of the inappropriate relationship, but rather because he lied about the relationship.
The difficulty that comes in prosecuting these crimes is the requirement that the statements be made knowingly or willingly. This allows those being accused of, or investigated for, perjury, to assert a lack of knowledge at the time of the statement that the statement was false. However, this may not be compelling enough to defeat or avoid a prosecution if contradictory evidence exists. Additionally, individuals who lie out of fear, or provide evasive answers, during a federal investigation, frequently find themselves facing the threat of federal prosecution.