A law enacted in 1938 – 2 USCA § 192 – says that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.
In reply, Kyle Sampson, then Department of Justice counsel to Attorney General John Ashcroft, wrote that it would be "weird to ask them to leave before completing at least a 4-year term", that they "would like to replace 15–20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys" and that the rest "are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc."
Sometimes that disobedience means refusing to appear before a committee to testify, and sometimes that means refusing to pony up requested documents. What's the point of holding someone in contempt of Congress?
"White House Is Reported to Be Linked to a Dismissal". The New York Times. ^ Robert Schmidt (2007-03-06). "Fired Prosecutor Says He Was Warned to Keep Quiet (Update2)". Bloomberg News. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-05-30. Retrieved 2007-05-16. ^ Rich, Eric (March 7, 2007).
The power of the President to refuse to approve a bill or joint resolution and thus prevent its enactment into law is the veto.
Each count of contempt of Congress carries a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of one year in jail, as well as a fine of up to $100,000. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
It's well past time to use it. The House needs to pass our inherent contempt resolution, which enables the House to levy penalties directly against those refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas. This can be done without needing the approval of either the Senate or the Executive Branch."
Contempt of court, also referred to simply as "contempt," is the disobedience of an order of a court. It is also conduct tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice.
Under this statute the wrongful refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena is made punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to one year. A committee may vote to seek a contempt citation against a recalcitrant witness. This action is then reported to the House. 2 USC Sec.
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 more than $100,000 or less than $100.
Contempt power means the power of public institutions such as Congress or a court to punish persons who show contempt for the process, orders, or proceedings of that institution. The contempt power aims to provide a means for a judge to uphold the dignity of the judicial process.
The state supreme court rejected this First Amendment defense in its Aug. 5 opinion in In the Matter of Eiler, writing that “judges do not have a right to use rude, demeaning, and condescending speech toward litigants.”
There are two types of contempt of court: criminal contempt of court and civil contempt. Civil contempt often involves the failure of someone to comply with a court order. Judges use civil contempt sanctions to coerce such a person into complying with a court order the person has violated.
Article 129[8] – Grants Supreme Court of India, the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 142(2)[9] – Enables the Supreme Court of India, to investigate and punish any person for its contempt. Article 215[10] – Grants every High Court the power to punish for contempt of itself.
2 . Statutory Contempt Procedure Generally An alternative statutory contempt procedure was enacted in 1857. Under this statute the wrongful refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena is made punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.
The veto allows the President to "check" the legislature by reviewing acts passed by Congress and blocking measures he finds unconstitutional, unjust, or unwise. Congress's power to override the President's veto forms a "balance" between the branches on the lawmaking power.
The desire to preserve a balance within the executive branch is one reason why the Kentucky House balked this year at a state Senate plan to strip Attorney General Andy Beshear of much of his authority. Beshear, a Democrat, has repeatedly sued GOP Gov. Matt Bevin.
One reason the AG gets to defend state laws is that constitutional expertise resides in that office.
The attorney general there refused to defend the law, so the Supreme Court threw it out in 2013 on a question of standing, on the grounds that the ballot initiative’s sponsors had no right to defend a state law if the state itself refused to do so.
Currently, Maine GOP Gov. Paul LePage is suing Janet Mills, the state’s Democratic attorney general, for refusing to pursue legal actions he favors. These conflicts come up most frequently on high-profile issues where partisans hold strong and opposing positions.
Attorneys general who refuse to defend state laws typically say it’s because those laws are unconstitutional, but Zoeller says that’s not their call to make. “The courts are empowered to make the decision of whether a law is constitutional or not,” he says.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court made same-sex marriage rights universal in 2015, several Democratic AGs refused to defend their states’ bans on the practice. Last year, Roy Cooper, then North Carolina’s attorney general, decided not to defend House Bill 2, which gutted anti-discrimination protections for gay and transgender people.
It means someone has obstructed the work of either Congress or a congressional committee.
"Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance, to punish the contemnor, and/or to remove the obstruction," the Congressional Research Service said.
Beyond Scavino, the panel has also subpoenaed former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former adviser Steve Bannon and Kash Patel, a former chief of staff to then-Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller.
While Trump threatened more than a month ago to assert executive privilege to block the committee's earlier request for records, he hasn't yet stepped up as a shield. And he didn't try to stand in the way of former DOJ top brass testifying this summer about his push to spread election fraud lies.
The White House and Justice Department are signaling that they believe the exceptional nature of January 6 means they wouldn't go to bat for witnesses ignoring subpoenas. But the White House also said they'd look at Capitol Hill requests case by case, in case there's a need to assert presidential privilege.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that some of the emails that had involved official correspondence relating to the firing of attorneys may have been lost because they were conducted on Republican party accounts and not stored properly. "Some official e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake the White House is aggressively working to correct." said Stanzel, a White House spokesman. Stonzel said that they could not rule out the possibility that some of the lost emails dealt with the firing of U.S. attorneys. For example, J. Scott Jennings, an aide to Karl Rove communicated with Justice Department officials "concerning the appointment of Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, according to e-mails released in March, 2007. For that exchange, Jennings, although working at the White House, used an e-mail account registered to the Republican National Committee, where Griffin had worked as a political opposition researcher."
On September 29, 2008 the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) released a report on the matter that found most of the firings were politically motivated and improper.
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed" and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".
Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.
The IG's report contained "substantial evidence" that party politics drove a number of the firings, and IG Glenn Fine said in a statement that Gonzales had "abdicated his responsibility to safeguard the integrity and independence of the department.".
The change in the law undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate and gave the Attorney General greater appointment powers than the President, since the President's U.S. Attorney appointees are required to be confirmed by the Senate and those of the Attorney General did not require confirmation.
Kevin Ryan (R) Though described as "loyal to the Bush administration," he was allegedly fired for the possible controversy that negative job performance evaluations might cause if they were released. John McKay (R) Was given a positive job evaluation 7 months before he was fired.