Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress. Being held in contempt of Congress is a rare but very serious penalty for refusing to comply with lawmakers. If seen all the way through, contempt of Congress can result in lofty fines or even jail time.
Generally, the penalty for being held in contempt of Congress can range from nothing, to $1,000 fine and a year in jail. Contempt of Congress is very similar to contempt of court.
But federal prosecutors, including all 93 U.S. attorneys, work for the attorney general and are under no legal obligation to pursue a contempt charge against him. As a 2019 Congressional Research Service report on enforcing congressional subpoenas explains, prosecutors have discretion, even when a statute uses mandatory language.
Notably, the power of Congress to hold people in contempt gets used more often than people seem to remember, but in order to actually punish someone, it requires more than just a vote to hold someone in contempt. Either the House or the Senate can issue contempt orders after voting.
House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to provide the full version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the White House responded by invoking executive privilege over it. ...
Several also pointed out Democrats moved much more quickly to hold Barr in contempt than Republicans on the oversight committee did with his Democratic predecessor Eric Holder in 2012 when they were seeking documents in the Fast and Furious case.
There is undoubtedly some irony that Barr is the first administration official facing contempt proceedings when his department, unlike the White House counsel’s office, actually came to the table to negotiate. And it is also true that the vote to hold Holder in contempt was, like Barr, upheld along party lines.
Although it will likely pass since Democrats control the chamber, Barr will probably face few legal repercussions, as federal prosecutors are unlikely to pursue criminal penalties for a contempt of Congress charge against their own boss.
If someone refuses to testify or provide information to an investigation by House or Senate, that body can respond with a contempt citation. While it’s not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has said several times that Congress has the right to compel people to comply when it’s overseeing an inquiry.
Assuming the finding is prosecuted and there’s a conviction (which is far from a sure thing), people cited can pay fines of up to $10,000 and face up to one year in prison. The offense is a federal misdemeanor.
If the citation passes the full House or Senate, it’s handed over to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia “ whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”
House holds William Barr, Wilbur Ross in criminal contempt of Congress. It's only the second time in U.S. history that Congress held a sitting Cabinet official in contempt of Congress.
The House general counsel has already filed suit to obtain Trump’s tax returns from the IRS, and Democrats gearing up for court action to enforce the Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas for testimony from ex-Trump aides, including former White House Counsel Don McGahn and former communications director Hope Hicks.
The Justice Department had said it could not legally turn over the documents, citing “the deliberative process” and “attorney-client communications.”. In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ahead of Wednesday’s vote, Barr and Ross decried Democrats’ move to hold them in criminal contempt.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats voted Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, citing a refusal by the Trump administration — which has asserted executive privilege — to provide lawmakers with an unredacted copy of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
Congress' power to hold someone in contempt may be used to "coerce compliance" with its demands, punish a person or remove an obstruction to the inquiry or proceeding, according to the Congressional Research Service. The authority is not specifically laid out in the Constitution, but it is considered an implied power of Congress, ...
On May 3, Nadler wrote Barr asking him to make a good faith effort to comply with the subpoena by Monday. That deadline was missed, and the same day, the committee announced a markup of a contempt citation for the attorney general.
The same day, Nadler and other top Democrats rejected a limited offer from Barr to allow 12 members of Congress to view a less-redacted version of the report in person but prohibit them from discussing it with other members of Congress.
When Republicans controlled the House in 2012, they voted to hold President Barack Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, in contempt over the administration's refusal to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal. The Obama Justice Department would not prosecute Holder, resulting in a protracted legal battle;
Congress can vote to hold a person "in contempt" if that person refuses to testify, won't provide information requested by the House or the Senate, or obstructs an inquiry by a congressional committee.
On April 19, committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., issued a subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report and key underlying evidence, giving the Justice Department a May 1 deadline to comply. The same day, Nadler and other top Democrats rejected a limited offer from Barr to allow 12 members of Congress to view a less-redacted version of the report in person but prohibit them from discussing it with other members of Congress.
WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to advance a measure that would hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after President Donald Trump asserted executive privilege over special counsel Robert Mueller's unredacted report.
Moving to hold Barr in contempt for refusing to comply with the committee's subpoena for the full, unredacted report and its underlying evidence is "not a step we take lightly," Nadler said Wednesday, but rather the "culmination of nearly three months of requests, discussions and negotiations with the Department of Justice."
Now that the Judiciary Committee has signed off on the contempt resolution, it will go to a vote in the full House. The timing of that vote would be up to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.