Can't the Senate Committee grant them immunity and compel their testimony?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

That reality isn't part of Pooka's fantasy.

Who wants to do that? At this time, it is wide open. OTOH, if they cannot find something after some work, they might.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

If anyone is going to do that, I would guess it would be some House committee. I'll bet Rep. Gardner has already requested it. Their asserting the Fifth and then being immunized will be like porn for him.

I have no idea whether immunization is likely in a case like this.

What will they do, send out the capitol police? The Congress is a political, not executive body. They don't have executive authority or power. Like the Supremes. Or as President Jackson observed, "Mr Marshall has made his law. Now let him enforce it." Marshall was a justice, not an executive. Jackson emasculated his ruling. Due to which, the Cherokee nation suffered mightily. Yay President Jackson.

You might consult with G. Gordon Liddy about the ability of the House to cited someone for contempt. He recieved a six month suspended sentence.

"Contempt of Congress is any improper attempt to obstruct the legislative process, usually by a refusal to provide information that Congress has requested. The contempt power is critical to Congress's ability to investigate the activities of the executive branch or any issue about which it is considering enacting legislation. Congress can use contempt citations against witnesses who refuse to testify or to produce required evidence. Those found guilty of contempt of Congress may go to prison.

There are three methods of prosecuting for contempt of Congress. First, Congress can try contempt cases itself. In 1848 and 1871 the Senate did just that, imprisoning newspaper reporters in the Capitol for not revealing the source of the Senate secrets they had published. Congress can also turn contempt cases over to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. However, juries have often acquitted individuals charged with contempt, especially if it appears that the congressional committee abused its power. For example, between 1950 and 1966 the House Un-American Activities Committee issued 133 contempt citations, but only nine people were convicted. Finally, the Senate or House can also file civil charges of contempt. Using this procedure, a federal judge determines whether a question asked by Congress was legitimate. If the judge orders a witness to answer and the witness refuses, then the witness would be in contempt of court and could be fined or imprisoned. For example, during the Watergate investigation the House cited G. Gordon Liddy for contempt for refusing to testify before a House committee. A federal judge gave Liddy a suspended six-month sentence.

The Supreme Court has upheld Congress's power to punish for contempt but has specified some limitations against its unreasonable use. In the case of McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927, the Court ruled that “a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information…. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain that which is needed.”

http://www.answers.com/topic/contempt-of-congress

Liddy worked under the authority of the executive branch. The ruling circumscribed the president's claim of "executive privilege", and thus protect Liddy. All congressmen have denounced exec privilege, all presidents embrace it.


I do not believe that a private citizen has ever been compelled to testify in Congress. Imunity is offered precisely because they cannot compel.

What about that baseball player that did the steroids that told em he didn't?

I'm wondering what in heck our elected officials are doing investigating stuff like that for.

__________________
Jim

He came voluntarily (under subpoena) and then allegedly lied under oath. Oops. I believe his case was referred to the Justice Department for prosecution, but I'm not certain.

I agree with you, WTF is congress doing mucking about in baseball? They got nuthin' else to do? And why do the leagues have a monopoly? Want to know why tickets cost so much?

Failure to comply with Congressional subpoena isn't contempt of Congress subject to the procedures already detailed in a previous post?

Congress can subpoena witnesses, or force them to testify under oath, before its committees. This authority comes from the Constitution's grant to Congress of “all legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1). Witnesses are subpoenaed to provide information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927), the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could subpoena even private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.” Witnesses who refuse to respond to a congressional subpoena, or refuse to give information (unless they invoke their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination) may be found in contempt of Congress and sent to prison.

The most famous use of the congressional subpoena occurred in 1973, when the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (popularly known as the Watergate Committee) subpoenaed the tape recordings that President Richard M. Nixon had secretly made of White House conversations. This was the first time that Congress had ever subpoenaed a President. Nixon tried to withhold the tapes, claiming executive privilege (the right of the President not to release internal documents of the administration to the Congress). The courts ruled that the President could not use executive privilege as blanket protection, but the White House then released only a heavily edited version of the tapes. In June 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege was a limited power and that the President must turn over all of the requested tapes to a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate incident. The opening of these tapes led Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against the President, causing Nixon to resign.


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/subpoena-power-of-congress#ixzz1YY0Rg9wQ

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler Can't the Senate Committee grant them immunity and compel their testimony?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst What will they do, send out the capitol police? The Congress is a political, not executive body. They don't have executive authority or power. Like the Supremes. Or as President Jackson observed, "Mr Marshall has made his law. Now let him enforce it." Marshall was a justice, not an executive. Jackson emasculated his ruling. Due to which, the Cherokee nation suffered mightily. Yay President Jackson.

As the original discussion involved Solyndra officials and the granting them immunity and thereby compelling their testimony the question you posed appeared to be about the power of Congress or the limitation of their power to accomplish that.

I posted an answer that clearly documents the power of the Congress to either compel or in the absence of, sanction individuals, by three specific methodologies.

With regard to your statement “The ruling circumscribed the president's claim of "executive privilege", and thus protect Liddy.” Is it your contention that the finding of guilty and the imposition of a suspended six-month sentence constitutes the protection of Liddy and the circumscription of executive power?

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding as to what MS Fowler stated; I don’t think he suggested that self incriminatory testimony could be compelled, but that the granting of full or partial immunity would in effect overcome any 5th amendment objection. This has been the case as I understand it, numerous individuals have been immunized and compelled to testify before Congress probably Col. Oliver North being one of the more famous or infamous.