Contempt of Congress

Last updated

Contempt of Congress [1] is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. senator or U.S. representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of requested documents. [2]

Contents

History

In the late 1790s, declaring contempt of Congress was considered an "implied power" of the legislature, in a similar manner as the British Parliament could make findings of contempt of Parliament—early Congresses issued contempt citations against numerous individuals for a variety of actions. Some instances of contempt of Congress included citations against:

In Anderson v. Dunn (1821), [6] the Supreme Court of the United States 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." [6] 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 that made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States. [7]

In the Air Mail Scandal of 1934, William MacCracken, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was sentenced to ten days of detention for destroying evidence under subpoena. MacCracken appealed his sentence to the Supreme Court in Jurney v. MacCracken . After losing his case, he surrendered to Chesley Jurney, Senate sergeant at arms, who detained him in a room at the Willard Hotel.

While it has been said that "Congress is handcuffed in getting obstinate witnesses to comply", [8] cases have been referred to the United States Department of Justice. [9] The Office of Legal Counsel has asserted that the President of the United States is protected from contempt by executive privilege. [10] [11]

Subpoenas

The Supreme Court affirmed in Watkins v. United States (1957) that "[the] power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process" and that "[it] is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigation." [12] 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 (1961), [13] a congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's 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 that has been authorized for investigation.

The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund (1975) [14] that congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech or Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" 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, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a congressional subpoena. For example, attorney–client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized. [15]

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.

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited 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 subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation). [16]

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 was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by Vice President John Nance Garner, in his capacity as Senate President), William P. MacCracken Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who was charged with allowing clients to remove or rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. [17]

MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken . [18] [19]

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; [20] 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 more than $100,000 or less than $100. [9]

Civil procedures

Senate Rules authorize the Senate to direct the Senate Legal Counsel to file a civil action against any private individual found in contempt. Upon motion by the Senate, the federal district court issues another order for a person to comply with Senate process. If the subject then refuses to comply with the Court's order, the person may be cited for contempt of court and may incur sanctions imposed by the Court. The process has been used at least six times.

Partial list contempt resolutions since 1975

PersonSubcommittee/CommitteeChamberUltimate Disposition
Rogers C.B. Morton,
Secretary of Commerce 		November 11, 1975
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 		Not consideredMorton released the material to the subcommittee.
Henry Kissinger,
Secretary of State 		November 15, 1975
House Select Committee on Intelligence 		Not consideredCitation dismissed after "substantial compliance" with subpoena.
Joseph A. Califano Jr.,
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare 		August 6, 1978
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 		Not consideredCalifano complied with the subpoena about one month after the subcommittee citation.
Charles W. Duncan Jr.,
Secretary of Energy 		April 29, 1980
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations 		Not consideredDuncan supplied the material by May 14, 1980.
James B. Edwards,
Secretary of Energy 		July 23, 1981
Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations 		Not consideredDocuments were delivered to Congress prior to full Committee consideration of the contempt citation.
James G. Watt,
Secretary of the Interior 		February 9, 1982
Subcommittee of House Committee on Energy and Commerce
February 25, 1982
House Committee on Energy and Commerce 		Not consideredThe White House delivered documents to the Rayburn House Office Building for review by Committee members for four hours, providing for no staff or photocopies.
Anne Gorsuch,
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 		December 2, 1982
Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation

House Committee on Public Works and Transportation

House of Representatives U.S. Attorney Stanley S. Harris never presented the case to a Grand Jury as required by law. [21] After legal cases and a court dismissal of the Executive Branch's suit, the parties reached an agreement to provide documents and withdrew contempt citation.
Rita Lavelle,
EPA official		April 26, 1983
House Committee on Energy and Commerce 		House of RepresentativesIndicted for lying to Congress but acquitted in a trial; Later convicted for lying to Congress and sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000
Jack Quinn,
White House Counsel 		May 9, 1996
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 		Not consideredSubpoenaed documents were provided hours before the House of Representatives was set to consider the contempt citation.
David Watkins,
White House Director of Administration
Matthew Moore, White House aide
Janet Reno,
Attorney General 		August 6, 1998
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 		Not consideredThe majority of documents in question were released following the conclusion of the Department of Justice investigation into campaign finance violations of 1996. However, an additional memo was withheld and later claimed as privileged by the George W. Bush administration. [22]
Harriet Miers,
Former White House Counsel 		July 25, 2007
House Committee on the Judiciary [23] 		February 14, 2008 House of Representatives [24] On March 4, 2009, Miers and former Deputy Chief of Staff to President Bush Karl Rove agreed to testify under oath before Congress about the firings of U.S. attorneys
Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff
Eric Holder, Attorney General June 20, 2012
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [25] 		June 28, 2012 House of RepresentativesFound in contempt by a vote of 255–67 [26] [27]
Lois Lerner
Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division 		March 11, 2014
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [28] 		May 7, 2014 [29] House of RepresentativesFound in contempt for her role in the 2013 IRS controversy and refusal to testify. The Department of Justice has been directed by the House to appoint special counsel. (See: Finding Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress (H.Res. 574; 113th Congress))
Bryan Pagliano
IT director, Hillary Clinton aide		September 13, 2016
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [30] [31] 		Not consideredHouse Committee voted, 19–15, to recommend Pagliano for a contempt resolution for failing to appear during a September 13 and 22, 2016, hearing after being subpoenaed and submitting a written Fifth Amendment plea in lieu of appearing in person. [30] [31] [32] No contempt resolution was considered by the chamber but Committee member Jason Chaffetz subsequently addressed a letter to the US Attorney General, writing as an individual member of Congress, requesting DOJ prosecution of Pagliano for misdemeanor "contumacious conduct." [33]
Backpage.com March 17, 2016
Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 		March 17, 2016 [34] SenateFound in contempt for failing to provide documents in an investigation into human trafficking.
William P. Barr, United States Attorney General

Wilbur Ross, United States Secretary of Commerce

House Committee on Oversight and ReformJuly 17, 2019, House of Representatives [35] Refusal to Comply with Subpoenas Duly Issued by the Committee on Oversight and Reform
Chad Wolf, United States Secretary of Homeland Security September 17, 2020
House Homeland Security Committee [36] 		Not consideredActing Homeland Secretary Chad Wolf defies subpoena and skips House hearing as he faces whistleblower allegations that he urged department officials to alter intelligence.
Steve Bannon October 18, 2021

House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack [37]

October 21, 2021, House of RepresentativesFound guilty by a Federal Jury of unlawfully defying a subpoena issued by the January 6th Committee. Sentenced to 4 months in prison. Stayed pending appeals process.
Mark Meadows, White House Chief of StaffDecember 13, 2021

House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack [38]

House of RepresentativesDecember 14, 2021, House of Representatives
Peter Navarro, White House AdviserFebruary 23, 2022

House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack

House of RepresentativesFound guilty by a Federal Jury of unlawfully defying a subpoena issued by the January 6th Committee on September 7, 2023. Sentenced to 4 months in prison. Stayed pending appeals process. [39]
Hunter Biden, son of President Joe BidenJanuary 10, 2024

House Committee on the Judiciary, House Committee on Oversight and Reform [40]

House of Representatives [41] Biden agrees to provide a deposition to Committee on Oversight and Reform. [42]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Congress</span> Legislative branch of U.S. government

The United States Congress is the legislature of the federal government of the United States. It is bicameral, composed of a lower body, the House of Representatives, and an upper body, the Senate. It meets in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Senators and representatives are chosen through direct election, though vacancies in the Senate may be filled by a governor's appointment. Congress has 535 voting members: 100 senators and 435 representatives. The U.S. vice president has a vote in the Senate only when senators are evenly divided. The House of Representatives has six non-voting members.

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing the information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its area of constitutional activity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1957</span> American civil rights law

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first federal civil rights legislation passed by the United States Congress since the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The bill was passed by the 85th United States Congress and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on September 9, 1957.

Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the executive branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; which is specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.

Reporter's privilege in the United States, is a "reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources." It may be described in the US as the qualified (limited) First Amendment or statutory right many jurisdictions have given to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery.

In countries with a parliamentary system of government, contempt of parliament is the offence of obstructing the legislature in the carrying out of its functions, or in the hindering any legislator in the performance of their duties.

A United States congressional hearing is the principal formal method by which United States congressional committees collect and analyze information in the early stages of legislative policymaking. Whether confirmation hearings, legislative, oversight, investigative, or a combination of these, all hearings share common elements of preparation and conduct. Hearings usually include oral testimony from witnesses and questioning of the witnesses by members of Congress. George B. Galloway termed congressional hearings a goldmine of information for all the public problems of the United States. A leading authority on U.S. government publications has referred to the published hearings as "the most important publications originating within Congress." The Senate Library in a similar vein noted "Hearings are among the most important publications originating in Congress."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Senate</span> Upper house of the US Congress

The United States Senate is the upper chamber of the United States Congress. The United States Senate and the lower chamber of Congress, the United States House of Representatives, comprise the federal bicameral legislature of the United States. Together, the Senate and the House maintain authority under Article One of the U.S. Constitution to pass or defeat federal legislation. The Senate has exclusive power to confirm U.S. presidential appointments, ratify treaties, exercise advice and consent powers, and try cases of impeachment brought by the House. The Senate and the House provide a check and balance on the powers of the executive and judicial branches of government.

Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress has an implicit power to find one in contempt of Congress. During a Senate investigation of airlines and of the U.S. Postmaster General, the attorney William P. MacCracken, Jr. allowed his clients to destroy subpoenaed documents. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor, MacCracken, a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus with the federal courts to overturn his arrest, but, after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William P. MacCracken Jr.</span> American politician (1888–1969)

William Patterson MacCracken Jr. was the first U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics. His department was awarded the Collier Trophy of 1928 for its contribution to the "development of airways and air navigation facilities". Later he was convicted of contempt of congress in the Air Mail scandal in 1934.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lois Lerner</span> American attorney

Lois Gail Lerner is an American attorney and former United States federal civil service employee. Lerner became director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2005, and subsequently became the central figure in the 2013 IRS targeting controversy in the targeting of politically aligned groups, either denying them tax-exempt status outright or delaying that status until they could no longer take effective part in the 2012 election. On May 10, 2013, in a conference call with reporters, Lerner apologized that Tea Party groups and other groups had been targeted for audits of their applications for tax-exemption. Both conservative and liberal groups were scrutinized. Only three groups—all branches of the Democratic group Emerge America—had tax exemptions revoked. Lerner resigned over the controversy. An investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, completed in 2015, found "substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia" but "found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Finding Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress</span>

H.Res. 574, officially titled Recommending that the House of Representatives find Lois G. Lerner, Former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, was a simple resolution that passed in the United States House of Representatives during the 113th United States Congress. The resolution was in response to the testimony of Lois Lerner, a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee, who was at the center of the then-ongoing 2013 IRS controversy over the agency's targeting of selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status. The resolution held Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify at a congressional hearing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amit Mehta</span> American federal judge (born 1971)

Amit Priyavadan Mehta is an American lawyer who has served as United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia since 2014. In 2021, Mehta became a judge on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Efforts to impeach Donald Trump</span> Efforts to impeach the 21st-century US president

Various people and groups assert that former U.S. president Donald Trump engaged in impeachable activity both before and during his presidency, and talk of impeachment began before he took office. Grounds asserted for impeachment have included possible violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by accepting payments from foreign dignitaries; alleged collusion with Russia during the campaign for the 2016 United States presidential election; alleged obstruction of justice with respect to investigation of the collusion claim; and accusations of "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred", which formed the basis of a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mueller special counsel investigation</span> US investigation into Russian interference in US elections

The Robert Mueller special counsel investigation was an investigation into 45th U.S. president Donald Trump regarding Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and was conducted by special prosecutor Robert Mueller from May 2017 to March 2019. It was also called the Russia investigation, the Mueller probe, and the Mueller investigation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (January–June 2019)</span>

This is a timeline of events in the first half of 2019 related to investigations into the many suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies relating to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It follows the timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, both before and after July 2016, until November 8, 2016, the transition, the first and second halves of 2017, the first and second halves of 2018, and followed by the second half of 2019, 2020, and 2021.

<i>In re: Don McGahn</i> American lawsuit regarding checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branches

In re: Don McGahn is a U.S. constitutional case lawsuit (1:19-cv-02379) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by the House Judiciary Committee to compel the testimony of former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn Jr. under subpoena. McGahn was put under subpoena to testify regarding his knowledge of the Russia investigation and Mueller Report and whether President Donald Trump's actions could constitute obstruction of justice. The case gained importance as the House launched impeachment proceedings against Trump regarding the Trump–Ukraine scandal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack</span> Bipartisan select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives

The United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol was a bipartisan select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives established to investigate the U.S. Capitol attack.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (July–December 2019)</span>

This is a timeline of major events in second half of 2019 related to the investigations into the myriad links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies that are suspected of being inappropriate, relating to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It follows the timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections before and after July 2016 up until election day November 8, and the transition, the first and second halves of 2017, the first and second halves of 2018, and the first half of 2019, but precedes that of 2020 and 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal impeachment in the United States</span> Procedure of officially accusing a civil officer

In the United States, federal impeachment is the process by which the House of Representatives charges the president, vice president, or another civil federal officer for alleged misconduct. The House can impeach an individual with a simple majority of the present members or other criteria adopted by the House according to Article One, Section 2, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ "Contempt of Congress". LII / Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on August 3, 2013. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
  2. ↑ Congressional Research Service (December 27, 2007). "Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities". EveryCRSReport.com. Archived from the original on December 19, 2019. Retrieved December 19, 2019. Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). All but Section 1503 cover congressional activities.
  3. ↑ "Founders Online: The Case of Robert Randall and Charles Whitney, 28 December 17 …". founders.archives.gov.
  4. ↑ "U.S. Senate: Senate Holds Editor in Contempt". www.senate.gov.
  5. ↑ "Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3 - Chapter 53 - Punishment of Witnesses for Contempt". www.govinfo.gov.
  6. 1 2 "Anderson v. Dunn 19 U.S. 204 (1821)". justia.com. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  7. ↑ Act of January 24, 1857, Ch. 19, sec. 1, 11 Stat. 155.
  8. ↑ Wright, Austin (May 15, 2017). "Why Flynn could easily beat his Senate subpoena". Politico . Retrieved May 17, 2017.
  9. 1 2 Congressional Research Service Report RL34097, Congress's Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure, Todd Garvey (May 12, 2017).
  10. ↑ Memorandum for the Attorney General from Theodore Olson, Re: Prosecution for the Contempt of Congress of an Executive Branch Official Who Has Asserted a Claim of Executive Privilege Archived February 25, 2017, at the Wayback Machine , 8 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 101 (1984)
  11. ↑ Memorandum for the Attorney General from Charles J. Cooper, Re: Response to Congressional Requests for Information Regarding Decisions Made Under the Independent Counsel Act Archived December 8, 2019, at the Wayback Machine , 10 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 68 (1986)
  12. ↑ Warren, Earl (1957). "WATKINS v. UNITED STATES". United States Reports. 554: 576. Retrieved August 24, 2020.
  13. ↑ "Wilkinson v. United States 365 U.S. 399 (1961)". justia.com. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  14. ↑ "Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund 421 U.S. 491 (1975)". justia.com. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  15. ↑ "Understanding Your Rights in Response to a Congressional Subpoena" (PDF). Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  16. ↑ Garvey, Todd (May 12, 2017). "Congress's Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. p. 10. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  17. ↑ "William P. Mac Cracken, Jr. Papers". ecommcode2.com. Archived from the original on April 21, 2008. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  18. ↑ "Jurney v. MacCracken 294 U.S. 125 (1935)". justia.com. Archived from the original on August 11, 2011. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  19. ↑ "This is the Statement of SEN. Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, before the Senate Judiciary Committee". senate.gov. Archived from the original on March 18, 2017. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  20. ↑ Eggen, Dan (April 11, 2007). "House Panel Issues First Subpoena Over Firings". The Washington Post.
  21. ↑ Maitland, Leslie; Times, Special To the New York (March 14, 1983). "U.S. ATTORNEY SAID TO ACT ON HIS OWN IN NOT PRESSING BURFORD CASE". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved May 9, 2021.
  22. ↑ Marquis, Christopher (May 19, 2000). "F.B.I. Memo Details Freeh Warning to Reno". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved May 9, 2021.
  23. ↑ Stout, David (July 25, 2007). "Panel Holds Two Bush Aides in Contempt". The New York Times . Archived from the original on April 17, 2014. Retrieved July 26, 2007.
  24. ↑ "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 60". Clerk of the United States House of Representatives. February 14, 2008. Archived from the original on February 27, 2008. Retrieved February 14, 2008.
  25. ↑ Perez, Evan (June 20, 2012). "House Panel Votes to Hold Holder in Contempt". The Wall Street Journal . Archived from the original on September 30, 2019. Retrieved June 20, 2012.
  26. ↑ "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 441". Clerk of the United States House of Representatives. June 28, 2012. Archived from the original on October 17, 2012. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
  27. ↑ "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 442". Clerk of the United States House of Representatives. June 28, 2012. Archived from the original on October 17, 2012. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
  28. ↑ "Lois Lerner's Involvement in the IRS Targeting of Tax-Exempt Organizations". house.gov. United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Archived from the original on December 25, 2018. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  29. ↑ "House votes to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress". foxnews.com. May 7, 2014. Archived from the original on October 23, 2015. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  30. 1 2 Gerstein, Josh (September 22, 2016). "House panel votes to hold Clinton tech aide Bryan Pagliano in contempt". Politico . Archived from the original on October 19, 2018. Retrieved November 17, 2018.
  31. 1 2 "Examining Preservation of State Department Records". oversight.house.gov. United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Archived from the original on September 21, 2018. Retrieved May 18, 2017. In the event Mr. Pagliano fails to appear, the Committee will consider the following: Resolution and Report recommending that the House of Representatives find Bryan Pagliano in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  32. ↑ "Examining Preservation of State Department Federal Records". oversight.house.gov. United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Archived from the original on September 22, 2018. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  33. ↑ "Chaffetz Asks Justice Department to Uphold Institutional Interests of Congress" (Press release). United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. February 17, 2017. Archived from the original on October 5, 2018. Retrieved November 17, 2018. Archived letter.
  34. ↑ "Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee". www.hsgac.senate.gov. Archived from the original on May 8, 2019. Retrieved May 18, 2017.
  35. ↑ "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 489, Recommending that the House of Representatives find William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States, and Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary of Commerce, In Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with Subpoenas Duly Issued by the Committee on Oversight and Reform". Archived from the original on December 18, 2019. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  36. ↑ "Chad Wolf defies Subpoena impeached after historic vote". December 19, 2019. Archived from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved December 24, 2019.
  37. ↑ "Steve Bannon Indicted for Criminal Contempt of Congress - November 13, 2021". Daily News Brief. November 13, 2021. Retrieved November 15, 2021.
  38. ↑ Jansen, Bart (December 13, 2021). "Former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows held in contempt by House Jan. 6 committee". USA Today. Retrieved January 12, 2024.
  39. ↑ "Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro convicted of contempt of Congress". CNN. September 7, 2023. Retrieved September 8, 2023.
  40. ↑ Fitzpatrick, Sarah; Concepcion, Summer; Richards, Zoë (January 10, 2024). "GOP-led committees vote to recommend that House hold Hunter Biden in contempt". NBC News. Retrieved January 12, 2024.
  41. ↑ Watson, Kathryn (January 12, 2024). "House to vote next week on holding Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress". CBS News. Retrieved January 12, 2024.
  42. ↑ "Hunter Biden agrees to deposition with House Republican after months of defiance, committee says". AP News. January 18, 2024. Retrieved January 19, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.