What happens when a person refuses Congress subpoena?

is it like the court your in contempt and jailed??? or is there no law violated

is there no law here

what use is subpoena power if their are no consequences???

respond by that date she maybe in contempt

issues it. If the R's issue one to a D then they get in BIG trouble. If a D issues one to an R nothing happens except the committee sighs and moves on.

Let me add that I hope this is not where we really stand but so far...

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

of nothing :eyes:.

The Democrats have not moved on this... They just issue subpoena after subpoena and we never ever get to the bottom of this issue... Are we heading in a direction (that is positive) or not?

Awaiting your reply!

ww

In general terms, not complying with a legal writ is criminal contempt, a prosecutable offense.

Congress has powers beyond the normal criminal processes, and can send their own officers to arrest someone. They can hold the contemptuous until compliance of until the end of the session.

Is someone saying a specific subpoena has not been complied with at this point in time? If so, which one?

It is very easy to just rant. Substantive discussion requires doing real work. Do I have to do the work because someone else rants w/o knowing the details?

"What happens when a person refuses Congress subpoena?

is it like the court your in contempt and jailed??? or is there no law violated"

Your Post in response was;

"As you can see, people who don't actually know have an opinion nonetheless"

So I am asking you;

"Post #5 What's your opinion on this then? I agree with the rest...

The Democrats have not moved on this... They just issue subpoena after subpoena and we never ever get to the bottom of this issue... Are we heading in a direction (that is positive) or not?

Awaiting your reply!

ww"

So, what's your response?

ww

One to RNC for all their e-mails and servers, one to Condi to testify. The Administration has said neither need to be acknowledged..So far Congress has done nothing public about either issue.

Almost serious, ultimately it ends up in Federal Court and is prosecuted by a Gonzo Rove attorney.

Provided the subpoena is actually a warrant for their immediate appearance. And refusal would be subject to my best judgment. Hmmm how about a taste of the taser? And then the cattle prod to guide them to the hearing room.

can bring contempt charges against the person in Federal court. He/She will be arrested and arraigned and subjected to trial. But that's if we were still working under the old Constitution of the former Republic. Now, under the Bush Dictatorship, you would probably have to make the request to the "Justice Department", along with a hefty bribe and then see what happens...

Not sure how the change will come about, but mark my words.. it will... What needs to happen is the American people need to be awakened... If that means a door to door campaign.. then so be it... It has to happen...

ww

White House contempt
By Susan Crabtree
June 22, 2007

House Judiciary Committee Democrats warned yesterday they would pursue a contempt of Congress motion if the White House fails respond to subpoenas for testimony and documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys last year.

The deadline for a response is Thursday, June 28. If the White House does not comply, it opens the possibility of a constitutional showdown between the two branches. In an ironic twist, the Department of Justice (DoJ) would be called on to enforce the contempt motion.

During yesterday’s testimony by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, panel Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) asked McNulty whether he would enforce such a motion. McNulty responded that he would recuse himself from handling such matters because of an internal DoJ investigation into the U.S. attorneys matter.

One of the contempt motions would likely be directed at Presidential Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, to whom the subpoena for documents was addressed, according to a Democratic aide.

Others who could face contempt motions include ex-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former White House political director Sara Taylor. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena testimony from Miers, while the Senate Judiciary panel voted to subpoena testimony from Taylor.

“The House and Senate judiciary committees have issued subpoenas to the White House for documents and testimony,” said Conyers. “We’re still hopeful they may cooperate. But it’s still possible that enforcement action may be taken.”

more...

would act to enforce the law in this matter. McNulty answered, "I don't know." That is where it has come to, folks. The number two official in the DoJ admitted in sworn testimony that he didn't know whether the DoJ would enforce the law or not. That tells you, just about all you need to know...

He should have said: "I know the Dept of Justice won't follow the law, that goes without saying. But what I'll ask you, Mr McNulty, is this: will YOU follow the law? Will you honor your oath & serve your country & will YOU follow the law?"

Make the bushies publicly acknowledge their duplicity & criminality.

And, the Justice Department may follow the law when confronted with enforcing a subpoena. That moment has not arrived.

Fitzgerald prosecuting Libby is also the Justice Department in action. Let's get real here.

DUers--presumedly Dems--rant on against the Dems without knowing what they are saying.
What a crock of broad brush anti-Dem crap one has to endure here! Why is that? Maybe because they hide behind a username?

McNulty also acknowledged that an Oct. 4, 2006, a phone call by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) complaining about the performance of then-New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias kept him from objecting to Iglesias’s placement on the list of those to be ousted. He did not disclose the influence of Domenici’s call during his February Senate testimony.

There are no rulers, just laws.

When someone like Cheney goes down, then the ruler goes down. So far, the rulers of the executive branch have been untouchable in the 21st century. Libby is not the mastermind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest

A citizen's arrest is an arrest performed by a person acting as a civilian, as opposed to a sworn law enforcement officer. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, when sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

but a suggestion here Congress and Citizens
Despite the title, the arresting person does not usually have to be a citizen of the country where he/she is acting, as they are usually designated as any person with arrest powers. In the USA, when performing a citizen's arrest it is advisable not to give a Miranda Warning or caution as this could be construed as impersonating a police officer; instead the arrestor should try to remember and tell the police officers anything the detained person has said.

A citizen's arrest is permitted in the District of Columbia but not in North carolina whats up with them???

All states other than North Carolina permit citizen arrests if a felony crime is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or when a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanor crimes, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. Note particularly that American citizens do not have the authorities or the legal protections of the police, and are strictly liable before both the civil law and criminal law for any violation of the rights of another.<6>

North Carolina General Statutes do not provide for citizen arrest, but instead provide for detention by private persons.<7> These statutes apply both to civilians and to police officers outside their jurisdiction. Citizens and police may detain any person who they have probable cause to believe committed in their presence a felony, breach of the peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property. The key distinction between an arrest and a detainment is that the detainee may not be transported without their consent.

A person who makes a citizen's arrest could risk exposing themselves to possible lawsuits or criminal charges (such as charges of impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest) if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated.

The level of responsibility that a person performing a citizen's arrest may bear depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, in France and Germany, a person stopping a criminal from committing a crime, including crimes against belongings, is not criminally responsible as long as the means employed are in proportion to the threat (note, however, that at least in Germany this results from a different legal norm: "self-defense" and "aid to others in immediate danger"—which are concerned with prevention not prosecution of crimes).

This case is one for the History Books Fascinating

but I guess that's off the table these days.

:grr:

You don't speak for us all, for one thing.

Do you even know what the timetable is for each subpoena?

Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. While historically the bribery of a Senator or Representative was considered "contempt of Congress," in modern times a person must refuse to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee - usually seeking to compel either testimony or documents - in order to be considered in "contempt of Congress."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

n the late 1790s, contempt of Congress was considered an "implied power" of the legislature. Early Congresses issued contempt citations against numerous individuals for a variety of actions. Some early instances of contempt of Congress included citations against:

* Robert Randall, for an attempt to bribe Representative William Smith of South Carolina in 1795.
* William Duane, a newspaper editor who refused to answer Senate questions in 1800.
* Nathaniel Rounsavell, another newspaper editor for releasing sensitive information to the press in 1812.

In 1821, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821) which held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it." The historical interpretation that bribery of a Senator or Representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law which made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States.

Ok so in 1857 Congress enacted a law saying it was a criminal offense
There are precedents in History also

From Wikipedia


Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full Committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the Chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399 (1961), the Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area which have been authorized for investigation.

The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the "Speech and Debate clause" which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, Courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, the Courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy.

Procedures

Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.

Oh here ya go "Several Options"

nder this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process has not been exercised by either House in over 70 year

Ok just what I thought the Sargeant at Arms is going to arrest Condi and the others Oh wait a minute its the DUTY of the US Attorney of the District of Columbia to refer to grand jury for action Ok here is the punishment 100 bucks to 1000 bucks :rofl: and jail time of 12 months WOW this is a Constitutional Crisis we are heading for History as we watch


Statutory proceedings

Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia<1>; according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.

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 less than $100 nor more than $1,000. Those penalties are enforced upon conviction, even if the Congress which initiated the contempt citation has expired.

The statutory procedure has generally been used by Congress since 1935. While the law pronounces the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney is to impanel a grand jury for its action on the matter, dispute exists over whether the Congress can properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action, as the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports to the President. (The Courts have been reluctant to decide this question, claiming it is a "political question" for resolution by the elected branches of government.)


People found in contempt and lying to Congress I hope Condi didn't lie or the others what happened to EPA official Rita Lavelle was ugly

Secretary of the Interior James Watt Subcommittee of House Committee on Energy and Commerce, by 11-6, on 9 February 1982 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, by 23-19, on 25 February 1982 Not considered The White House delievered documents to the Rayburn House Office Building for review by Committee members for four hours, providing for no staff or photocopies.
EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Oversight Subcommittee of the House Public Works Committee, by 9-2, on 2 December 1982 House Public Works Committee House of Representatives, by 259-105 After legal cases and a Court dismissal of the Executive Branch's suit, the parties reached an agreement to provide documents.
EPA official Rita Lavelle Not considered House Energy and Commerce Committee, unanimously held her in contempt on 26 April 1983 House of Representatives, by 413-0 Indicted for lying to Congress; convicted; sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000
White House Counsel Jack Quinn, White House Director of Administration David Watkins, aide Matthew Moore Not considered House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, by 27-19, on 9 May 1996 Not considered Subpoenaed documents were provided hours before the House of Representatives was set to consider the contempt citation
Attorney General Janet Reno Not Considered House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, by 24-19, on 6 August 1998 Not considered Documents in question were revealed during the impeachment of President Clinton

The sergeant in arms of the Senate according to his official site says
he can arrest the President of the United States

"As chief law enforcement officer of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms
is charged with maintaining security in the Capitol and all Senate buildings,
as well as protection of the members themselves.

The Sergeant at Arms serves as the executive officer of the Senate
for enforcement of all rules of the Committee on Rules and Administration
regulating the Senate Wing of the Capitol and the Senate Office Buildings
and has responsibility for and immediate supervision of the Senate floor,
chamber and galleries.

"The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States."

Link: http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/sergeant_at_arms.htm

and you DON'T want THAT! :scared:

well I hope Congress is ready for a fight

It's just up to congress to determine if they want to go that route. Condi was subpoenaed, IIRC, and declined to show. Congress let it go rather than hold her in contempt.

criminals too for negligence They are given the power of the people and should do their jobs

allowing someone to ignore their subpoena weakens the subpoena power of the Congress and makes Congress effectively Nobodies

the next move is up to Congress