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?

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.

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

I plead Jackson's precedent: Congress can subpoena people all they want: To compel testimony requires collaboration with the executive. If the president says, "Not right now, boys." What can Congress do?

Old Hickory ain't ****e! That was then this is now, at least since 1927!

A landmark decision of the Supreme Court, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 47 S.Ct. 319, 71 L.Ed. 580 (1927), recognized the implicit power of either House of Congress to hold a witness in a congressional investigation in Contempt for a refusal to honor its summons or to respond to its questions.
During the mid-1920s, there were numerous allegations that the U.S. Justice Department was being mismanaged by its administrator, harry daugherty, the attorney general of the United States. In response to the charges, the Senate passed a resolution that empowered an investigatory committee to hear evidence as to whether Daugherty failed to prosecute various violations of the antitrust laws. Mally S. Daugherty, who was a bank president as well as the brother of the attorney general, refused to respond to a subpoena that was issued by the committee on two occasions, ordering him to appear and to bring designated bank ledgers. The president pro tempore of the Senate issued a warrant to his sergeant at arms that Mally Daugherty be taken into custody. A deputy of the sergeant at arms took Daugherty into custody in Cincinnati, Ohio. Daugherty brought a Habeas Corpus action for his release in federal district court in Ohio. The court declared that the attachment and detention of the witness was void on the ground that the Senate exceeded its powers in directing the investigation and in ordering the seizure of Daugherty. The deputy made a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case for review.
The Court defined two issues: whether the Senate or House of Representatives has authority to use its own process to compel a private person to appear as a witness and to testify before it or one of its committees in order that Congress can perform a legislative function that it has under the Constitution; and whether the process that was used in this case was directed toward that purpose. Before addressing those questions, however, the Court reviewed some of Daugherty's assertions. Daugherty argued that there was no statutory provision for a deputy and that even if there were, the deputy had no power to execute the warrant, since it was addressed to the sergeant at arms. The Court disagreed. It explained that deputies were authorized to act for the sergeant at arms by virtue of a standing order adopted by the Senate and that Congress recognized their status by establishing and making appropriations for their compensation.
Daugherty also used the Fourth Amendment provision that "no warrants shall issue, but upon Probable Cause, supported by oath or affirmation," to assert that the warrant was void because its basis was an unsworn committee report. The Court rejected this argument on the ground that the committee members were acting pursuant to their oath as Senators when they issued the warrant. When committee members act on matters within their knowledge, probable cause exists for the action of the committee. The warrant withstood constitutional muster.
Daugherty also claimed that the warrant was deficient because it stated that he be "brought before the bar of the Senate then and there" to testify. It was not a subpoena to appear before the Senate, nor did he refuse to do so. The Court dismissed this assertion, because it considered the warrant an auxiliary process used by the committee that was acting for the Senate to compel the witness to provide testimony sought by the subpoena.
The Court finally addressed the central issues of the case: the constitutional authority of the Senate to act in such a manner; and whether the warrant in this case was appropriate. It reasoned that while the power to investigate was not explicitly given to Congress by the Constitution, it was traditionally recognized as implicit in the legislative function since it is a means to obtain necessary information. The Court also referred to various federal laws that demonstrated that either house of Congress has the power to commence investigations and gather evidence concerning activities within its jurisdiction; that committees may conduct such investigations; that in order to fully implement the power to investigate, either house may punish uncooperative witnesses; and witnesses may be given Immunity from criminal prosecutions that derive from their testimonies before the committees. Based upon tradition and statutes, the Court concluded that each house of Congress has auxiliary powers that are essential in order to effectuate its express powers, but neither house has unlimited "general" power to investigate private matters and force testimony. The Senate acted within its powers when it authorized a committee to investigate Daugherty. When the committee sought Daugherty's testimony, it was as a means to perform a legislative function since the purpose of the inquiry was to determine whether the attorney general and the Department of Justice—subjects of congressional regulations and appropriations—were properly performing their duties. The Court deemed that Daugherty's seizure and detention were appropriate because of his wrongful refusal to appear and testify before a lawful congressional committee. It reversed the order of the district court that released Daugherty from custody.

I believe that is incorrect. Congress has subpoena power, which means they can compel witnesses to appear. What they can't do is compel the witness to incriminate himself. It appears that if Congress serves this Solyndra guy with a subpoena, he will show up and refuse to answer questions on the ground that his answers may incriminate him. Then, if he is immunized, the risk of incrimination goes away, the Fifth Amendment becomes irrelevant, and he has to testify or be held in contempt of Congress. If he lies under oath, he will get prosecuted, like that other famous immunized witness, Oliver North.

Or at least that's how I think it works.

^^^

That's similar to my understanding.

I believe the Serjeant-at-Arms has the ability to arrest as well.

In some ways particularly with respect to power it is very much analogues to a grand jury. Of course the procedures are different mainly because of the secrecy element of the grand jury, but when you're subpoenaed you’re pretty much limited in your options.

In the early 1950’s the House un-American Activities Committee had a number of Contempt of Congress prosecutions that ended with convictions and punishments of some sort

I completely agree that they have the legal authority to do so. But to compel appearance, they must either send their own police or request Justice Dept assistance. Again, see President Jackson's observation, not unlike Josef Stalin's vs the Pope.

I was unaware that the congress had in fact, sent it's MA to collect a witness. (Thanks, Billybob. Really) That works just fine on people who don't wish to hide.

Assuming that is the case it raises 2 questions. We are assuming there are other guilty parties besides him, right? That way we can catch the big fish and let the smaller one go? What if the reverse is true? We might be giving the crook a free pass to name a few insignificant things? Further to that, must I accept immunity? IDK.

__________________
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

Naw, today we're all upset over the DOJ officials who have been paying $16 a piece for muffins at their meetings.

An unnamed DOJ official commented off the record that "We are appalled by this and will be looking into it . . . "

I feel better now .

__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles

Somebody will get his buns toasted.

Much like the Chinese guy who got "fired" for that toxic food from China. We found our scapegoat and life is good. Next disaster.

__________________
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

I believe that problem has led to turf wars between prosecutors in the executive branch and Congressional investigators. Some Congressman will be chomping at the bit to immunize a witness so that he can have a show hearing and maybe get himself on Hannity or Olberman. Meanwhile, the prosecutors worry that Congress's granting of immunity will screw up their criminal cases. I believe that the immunization given by Congress is usually use immunity as opposed to transactional immunity, otherwise known as blanket immunity. Use immunity means that the testimony you give cannot be used against you. Transactional immunity is broader and prevents the state from prosecuting the witness at all. That does not mean, however, that use immunity can't screw up a prosecutor's ability to get a conviction, which is exactly why the charges against Oliver North were dismissed.I do not think the witness has any say in whether he is immunized. That's what subpoena power means. You have to show up and you have to testify, unless you have a valid privilege to assert. Once they make the decision to immunize you, your Fifth Amendment rights are no longer at risk. If you don't testify, you will be held in contempt of Congress.