- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: FBI's Peter Strzok may ignore House subpoena, says his lawyer
Posted on 7/5/18 at 11:53 am to novabill
Posted on 7/5/18 at 11:53 am to novabill
quote:
What CAN Congress do? Can they have him arrested?
No. Congress has no authority to prosecute. They can, however, turn it over to the DoJ. But with RR being in control over there, good luck with that.
Posted on 7/5/18 at 11:56 am to Janky
quote:
can you do that?
You can. Its up to the AG whether to prosecute for contempt of congress.
Posted on 7/5/18 at 11:57 am to AUstar
quote:
No. Congress has no authority to prosecute.
I believe under house rules they can send out the Sergeant at Arms to detain the witness until he cooperates.
Eta:
quote:
He'd face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000. When a witness in a congressional inquiry ignores a subpoena—and refuses either to testify before a committee or hand over requested documents—the committee can vote to issue a citation for contempt. If the full House (or Senate, if it's a Senate committee) also votes in favor, the citation gets passed to the office of the U.S. attorney, which is expected to bring the case before a federal judge.
Advertisement
The Constitution does not explicitly give Congress the right to issue subpoenas or contempt citations, but it began to do so not long after the birth of the Republic. The Supreme Court upheld the practice in 1821, reasoning that without it, Congress "would be exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice or even conspiracy may mediate against it." The ruling gave Congress the right to imprison uncooperative witnesses for contempt, but for no longer than the duration of the Congress that passed the citation.
Until the middle of the 19th century, Congress would enforce contempt citations itself, with the sergeants-at-arms taking guilty parties into custody. But the limitations of the 1821 court ruling led lawmakers to turn over the responsibility for prosecuting these citations to the executive branch. From 1857 on, a U.S. attorney was asked to certify contempt citations and bring them before a federal judge. The limit on the duration of imprisonment no longer applied. Problems arose in the 1920s, when Attorney General Harry Daugherty failed to prosecute corrupt officials (including his own brother) who refused to testify to Congress about the Teapot Dome scandal.
Slate (of all sources from 2005)
This post was edited on 7/5/18 at 12:03 pm
Posted on 7/5/18 at 12:05 pm to GumboPot
quote:Lol wut?
"My client will testify soon, somewhere, sometime. We just got this subpoena today, so I don't know whether or not we are going to be testifying next Tuesday in front of these two particular House subcommittees,"
I'd suggest looking on the date of the subpoena because that's probably when they will expect you.
Posted on 7/5/18 at 12:21 pm to GumboPot
Thought he had volunteered to testify anywhere at anytime?
Popular
Back to top

1





