[ad_1]
Breaking News Emails
Receive last minute alerts and special reports. News and stories that matter, delivered the mornings of the week.
SUBSCRIBE
By Ken Dilanian
WASHINGTON – Judicial Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, DN.Y., threatens to summon Attorney General William Barr, who has announced to the commission that he may refuse to appear at the hearing on Thursday, unless the members waive his intention to have him questioned by the staff lawyers.
This is one of the many potential testimony battles between Congress and the Trump administration, which shows a growing willingness to set up Congressional oversight committees with stiff arms .
So what practical options does Congress have to enforce its wishes?
Not easy, as it is.
The Congress has three methods for obtaining compliance with a subpoena by holding a witness in contempt, according to the Congressional Research Service. Everyone has problems.
Under the doctrine of "inherent disregard", the House or Senate could send members of its security forces to arrest and detain the witness. There is a precedent in US history, but not a precedent – it has not been used since 1935.
In the modern world, the Sergeant of arms of the House will not be able to arrest the Attorney General, who is protected by an FBI armed security officer. As a former White House official has already said, half jokingly: "They have a lot of firearms out there."
The second method is to seek a witness of criminal contempt under federal criminal laws. 2 USC ยงยง192 and 194. The laws criminalize non-compliance with a lawful subpoena of Congress and invite the House or Senate to refer a criminal contempt quote to the US District Attorney's Office. Columbia, who can: apply for an indictment to a grand jury.
The problem in this case is that all federal prosecutors, including more than 90 or more American lawyers, work for Barr and would have no obligation to file a contempt complaint.
This leaves a third option – the Congress can ask a judge to name contempt of the public. The Judicial Committee, for example, could bring a Barr trial in a district court, provided that a simple majority of all members of the House vote to authorize such action.
"If the person still refuses to comply, he can be tried by the court in summary contempt proceedings, with sanctions to compel him to comply," said the Congressional Research Service in a statement. article of 2017.
The Judiciary Committee of the House, then controlled by the Democrats under the administration of George W. Bush, is a recent precedent in this area.
A Congressional investigation into the dismissal of several US lawyers was involved.
The commission assigned Harriet Miers, a former White House lawyer, and the White House ordered her not to comply, citing the privilege of the executive. He gave the same instructions for assigning documents to Josh Bolten, Chief of Staff of the White House.
Both were found guilty of contempt of Congress and the Speaker of the House asked the American attorney in Washington, DC to pursue the case.
But the federal prosecutor refused to do so, citing a Justice Department policy of not prosecuting a White House official for contempt of Congress if that official had invoked the privilege of the executive branch at the request of the president. .
Congress sued and a district court judge sided with lawmakers. The Bush administration appealed and President Barack Obama took office while the case was still pending. The new administration has settled the case by granting Congress access to some of the requested documents and allowing the sworn testimony of Miers.
At that time, a year and a half after the convocation by Congress, the issue of surveillance was largely irrelevant.
The House Watch Committee, under Republican control, tried to call Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012, following a scandal involving a gun investigation called Operation Fast and Furious.
This time, Obama's Justice Ministry refused to sue the Attorney General for contempt of Congress. The court battle was long and it was only in January 2016 that a court ordered the Department of Justice to produce certain documents. The Obama administration appealed and the case lasted until the inauguration of President Donald Trump.
In March of last year, the Trump Department of Justice settled the case by agreeing to publish some records.
"The Department of Justice under my responsibility is committed to transparency and the rule of law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.
Now that it is the Democrats who are making the demands, the heat for transparency within the Justice Department seems to be a little appeased.
[ad_2]
Source link