Outrage at Congress: House will vote next week

Democrats in the House are attempting to pass the unpublished comprehensive report of Special Advocate Special Advocate Robert Mueller, threatening to condemn at least two Trump administration officials in defiance of Congress.

Next Tuesday, the House of Representatives will hold a vote on the opportunity to convict the Attorney General, William Barr, and former White House lawyer Don McGahn, in contempt of Congress, announced Monday night the House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer. And other Trump officials could still be added, he said.

"I see all the names that refused to respond to subpoenas or Congressional documents, or that were instructed by the President not to answer, [being] to be on this list, "Hoyer told the press on Tuesday." I will not try to name them all. "

Frustrated by months of lack of time to subpoena and refusal from the Trump administration, the Judiciary Committee of the House first passed a resolution for contempt of court. political parties last month, after a long and contentious hearing. The vote took place after Barr failed to submit Mueller's full and unredacted report by Monday's deadline.

While a small but growing number of Democrats in the House are calling for an impeachment inquiry, the contempt resolution marks a return to a focus of Democratic anger on Barr and McGahn.

Democrats feel compelled to make a big statement against the Trump government, especially after the president asserted the executive's power last month to prevent the House from accessing the full package. Mueller report and its underlying documents – the first time Trump used his executive powers to protect portions of Mueller's discoveries.

"I'm afraid the ministry is heading in the wrong direction," Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said at the time, calling it "a sharp escalation" by the ministry. of Trump's Justice.

Barr's main objection to the publication of the full report concerns regulations that prohibit the publication of grand jury documents to members of Congress. The Attorney General has offered Democrats a less expurgated version of Mueller's report, but they have so far rejected the offer. They want the complete thing.

Contempt is another way for Congress to obtain documents to appear, asking the US District Attorney or the Department of Justice to indict Barr of contempt criminal for failing to comply with a Congressional subpoena. In theory, a charge of contempt to a fine or imprisonment for the Attorney General (although in reality, this will probably not happen).

As serious as contempt may seem, the vote itself will not be more than a powerful message sent by Congress – unless the Democrats adopt a different resolution authorizing the prosecution of Barr and the Trump administration to try to get the Mueller report. They plan to do it too, continuing to fight the Trump administration in court.

Democrats will now try to launch the Barr and McGahn indictment process. They may find themselves stuck in a long and protracted legal battle.

Here's how contempt of Congress works

A vote in the House on a contempt quote does not come out of nowhere; The Trump administration has blocked the judicial commission's assignment to the Mueller report, as well as numerous other requests for summons to the House.

Congressional contempt quotes are a tool that the House or Senate can use in cases where their requests for summons are repeatedly rejected. The Congress argues essentially that the executive power blocks and impedes its ability to carry out its supervisory tasks in accordance with the Constitution.

But it is crucial to remember that Congress is just another request, although it is formulated more firmly. In reality, it may be difficult to obtain executive power, precisely because the executive power has the power to prosecute the individual who fails to comply with the subpoena request.

Here's how Todd Garvey, a congressional congressional lawyer, explains in a recent summary:

First, the Criminal Contempt Act allows only one House of Congress to certify a contempt of court claim for criminal prosecution of a person who has deliberately refused to comply with a committee summons. Once the contempt quote is received, any lawsuit is under the control of the executive.

How will it work in practice: If the Plenary adopts the resolution on contempt of court, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi will issue the quotation for Barr to be declared guilty of contempt. She will forward this quote to the US District Attorney's Office or the Department of Justice. The American lawyer or the Department of Justice will probably say that they do not plan to sue Barr.

That would be the end of the matter, unless the Democrats adopt a separate resolution authorizing the courts to take action against Barr and the Trump administration on the Mueller report, and to make sure that the courts decide on their request for summons and contempt.

Democrats intend to take the next step, which they would probably do before using their own inherent contempt power to impose a fine or imprison the Attorney General.

"We have to do the contempt of court before the House lawyer goes to court," Republic official Ted Lieu (D-CA) told reporters last month. . "The first option would be to win in the courts. we have a very strong case. "

Democrats feel confident because the Trump government has decided to block or deny all their subpoenas, not just the Mueller report. At least one former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration believes Trump's broad refusal could potentially undermine his legal argument.

"What is unusual is the widespread denial," John Yoo, former US Deputy Attorney General at the Legal Counsel Office of MJ Bush, told The New York Times. "It would be extraordinary if the President really tried to stop all Congressional testimony on subpoenas. It would be really unprecedented if it was a complete ban. "

This itself is risky. If a judge ruled against the Congress and in favor of the Trump administration, it could create a new legal precedent that would allow future presidential administrations to more easily hide information from future congressional committees.

But if the court ruled in favor of the Democrats, it could strengthen the legality of Congress and compel the Trump administration to comply with subpoenas, which would have more serious consequences for unethical officials. For example, a judge could charge the administration officials with contempt of court rather than contempt of Congress.

Democrats have already had success in the courts; Two federal judges upheld their subpoenas for Trump's financial information in the House's oversight committees and financial services. Emboldened by these early victories, Pelosi wants Democrats to continue their investigations.

Inherent power of the Congress for contempt, explained

Congress technically has another option that gives it much more power to pursue non-compliant individuals, the inherent power of contempt. But lawmakers probably will not use it.

The contempt of the Congressional citation on which the House will vote next week is very different from the power of contempt: the ability of Congress to arrest or incarcerate people who do not comply with subpoenas .

As Garvey explained in his summary, this is the way Congress ensured that people would comply with his subpoena requests if they refused, from the 1850s and up to the years 1930. Congress can do this (the Supreme Court has confirmed its ability to do this), but this is no longer the case since the 1930s because, well, throwing people into jail is a bit hard:

When adopting a House or Senate resolution authorizing the execution of an arrest warrant by the Sergeant-at-Arms of that House, the person alleged to have behaved with scorn is taken into custody and brought before the House or the Senate. A hearing or "trial" ensues in which the allegations are heard and the defenses invoked.

If found guilty, the House or Senate may order that the witness be detained or imprisoned until the exercise of the legislative power is removed.

As Garvey writes, the detention of these people by Congress is not a punishment but rather an additional incentive to produce the information more quickly.

Lately, some Democrats have talked about it as a way to give more strength to their subpoenas.

"We have the power to detain and incarcerate," Gerry Connolly (D-VA), a member of the House Oversight Committee, told reporters last month. "We do not use it … does not mean that we can not, and I am all to reactivate it."

When asked where Congress would place members of the Trump administration, Connolly pointed to DC Prison.

"As you know, we have jurisdiction over the District of Columbia," he said. "And they have a nice prison with a lot of space. So, I think it would be perfect for some of these people to contemplate their actions and their judgment. "

To be clear, there is no indication that Democrats are ready to rekindle Barr and McGahn's power of contempt, and that would probably be a tool of last resort. The Attorney General is probably not sentenced to prison, especially if the department he supervises is responsible for deciding whether to prosecute or not. What matters now is that the Democrats decide to sue the Attorney General and former White House lawyer before a court and that a judge says they are guilty of contempt of court.

Passing a quote for contempt of Congress is only the first step.