Category: Contempt of Congress

Posted on

Dr. Fauci, Senator Paul, and the Congressional Contempt Process

Today the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) voted, 8-5 along party lines, to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions before the committee. The HSGAC resolution provides:

Resolved, That pursuant to sections 102 and 104 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 192, 194), the President of the Senate shall certify the report of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, detailing the refusal of Dr. Anthony S. Fauci to answer questions pertinent to the subject under inquiry, to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that Dr. Fauci be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.

Section 192 of Title 2 provides, in relevant part, “[e]very person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of . . . any committee of either House of Congress . . . who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor . . . .”

Notwithstanding this language, it is well established that witnesses before Congress may not be punished for valid assertions of their constitutional rights, including the privilege against self-incrimination. Here Fauci refused to answer based on that privilege. Ordinarily that would end the matter unless the committee chose to grant him testimonial use immunity (see 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002, 6005). In this case, however, the committee majority contends that Fauci could not validly invoke the privilege because he received a full pardon from President Joe Biden for the events that were under inquiry by HSGAC.

The main substantive legal issue presented by the contempt is whether that pardon means that Fauci has no reasonable fear of self-incrimination and therefore may not validly invoke the privilege. Fauci argues that it does not, pointing to the fact that Republicans, including President Trump himself, have questioned the validity of Biden’s “autopen pardons.”  Even if the pardon ordinarily would provide adequate assurance against prosecution, Fauci’s lawyers will argue, it does not do so under these circumstances, particularly given the current administration’s demonstrated willingness to prosecute political enemies without justification.

Not being a criminal lawyer or having researched the question, I will not weigh in on whether Fauci has a winning argument on this point. (There is some good discussion in this AP article). It is worth noting, though, as Daniel Schuman discusses here, that a decision against Fauci could enhance a future Congress’s ability to get information from Trump administration officials if/when Trump pardons them.

However, before we get to that point there is a major procedural obstacle to prosecuting Fauci. Section 194 of Title 2 provides:

Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, rec­ords, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question pertinent to the subject under inquiry before . . . any committee or subcommittee of either House of Congress, and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or when Congress is not in session, a statement of fact constituting such failure is reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it shall be the duty of the said President of the Senate or Speaker of the House, as the case may be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.

Some important aspects of this section may not be immediately apparent from reading its rather dense language. It might appear that once “a statement of fact constituting such failure” is reported to the Senate or, if the Senate is not in session, to the president of the Senate that it is the automatic duty of said officer to certify the statement of fact to the “appropriate United States attorney” for presentation to a grand jury. However, the invariable congressional practice under the statute is that when the contempt is reported to the House or Senate, as the case may be, the legislative body itself must vote to certify the contempt before the presiding officer will do so.

There is an exception to that requirement when Congress is not in session. In that case the speaker or president of the Senate may certify the contempt without a vote of the body. The last (and possibly the only) time this was done was in December 1964, when Congress was not in session and a House committee transmitted to the speaker a report regarding witnesses who had refused to testify before one of its subcommittees. The speaker, based on advice from the parliamentarian, understood that he had a mandatory duty to transmit the report to the U.S. attorney. However, the D.C. Circuit rejected that reading of the statute and reversed the convictions that followed. See Wilson v. United States, 369 F.2d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1966).

Continue reading “Dr. Fauci, Senator Paul, and the Congressional Contempt Process”

Posted on

Bannon, Garland and Contempt of Congress: Part II (The Bannon Contempt)

Steve Bannon, a close political associate of former President Trump who briefly served in the Trump White House in 2017, was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to a four-month prison term for contempt of Congress in connection with the investigation conducted by the January 6 select committee. He has been ordered to report to prison on July 1, which is today.

Andy McCarthy’s June 8 column on the Bannon case seems primarily aimed at convincing the sort of MAGA-adjacent types who might still read National Review that there was nothing untoward about the trial judge’s decision to order Bannon to prison. This decision resulted in what McCarthy euphemistically calls “gnashing of teeth” by MAGA leaders, including Bannon and Trump. Trump, for example, posted on Truth Social that sending Bannon to prison represented the “unAmerican Weaponization of our Law Enforcement” and then demanded, with his usual logical consistency, that members of the select committee themselves be indicted. Even more ominously, Mike Davis, the former Gorsuch clerk and Senate Judiciary Committee staffer turned weird MAGA personality, warned “Biden Democrats” on X that “[y]our glee will turn into terror after January 20, 2025” and “[r]evenge is best served cold.”

McCarthy points out (as I did to Davis) that the trial judge, Carl Nichols, is a Trump appointee and thus not a very likely participant in a conspiracy of “Biden Democrats.” He explains in some detail why Judge Nichols had treated Bannon fairly and, if anything, had bent over backwards to give him every benefit of the doubt. All this sounds reasonable to me and certainly much more plausible than the idea that Nichols is somehow involved in “weaponizing” the law against poor Steve Bannon.

Perhaps to make these unpalatable facts go down easier, however, McCarthy castigates the Justice Department and the select committee for prosecuting Bannon in the first place. This is where I have a serious disagreement. McCarthy’s position seems to be that Bannon was most likely guilty of the crime charged, but that his legal position was plausible or “arguably lawful” and that the proper and “normal” way to resolve this disagreement was through a civil action, rather than criminal prosecution. This position makes no sense to me. Continue reading “Bannon, Garland and Contempt of Congress: Part II (The Bannon Contempt)”

Posted on

Bannon, Garland and Contempt of Congress: Part I (Legal Background)

National Review’s legal contributing editor, Andrew McCarthy, has written two recent columns regarding the House’s use of criminal contempt. One involves Donald Trump’s political associate, Steve Bannon, who has been ordered to report to prison on July 1 to serve a four-month sentence for his refusal to comply with a subpoena to testify before the January 6 select committee. The second involves the House’s vote to hold the current attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt for failing to comply with the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for the recording of President Joe Biden’s interview with former special counsel Robert Hur.

I have some significant disagreements with McCarthy’s views, which I will discuss in future posts. Today, however, I want to provide some background on the relevant law, which is necessary for understanding the context of these disagreements.

Both matters arise under 2 U.S.C. §194, which provides that whenever a witness is summoned to testify or produce documents by a congressional committee and fails to appear, answer pertinent questions, and/or produce the documents at issue

and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session . . . it shall be the duty of the [] President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, as the case may be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.

You may notice that there is quite a bit of mandatory language in this statutory provision, i.e., references to “duty” and/or what a particular officer “shall” do. I particularly like the part which states “it shall be the duty of the presiding officer to certify a contempt report and then helpfully explains, in case the meaning of “duty” is unclear, “and he shall so certify.” This reminds me of the instructions for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

The underlying offense of contempt of Congress is defined by a separate statutory provision, which provides:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

2 U.S.C. § 192.

On its face this provision requires “[e]very person” summoned by the authority of either house of Congress to produce information demanded by a congressional committee, but it also implicitly or explicitly suggests certain limits to this legal duty. First, the information must relate to a “matter under inquiry” by the committee. Second, at least in the case of a refusal to answer questions, the question must be “pertinent to the matter under inquiry.” Third, the default must be “willful,” which suggests that “non-willful” defaults (whatever that may mean) do not constitute a crime. Finally, it is well known that there are certain constitutional privileges which apply in congressional proceedings, the least controversial of which is the privilege against self-incrimination. It may therefore be inferred that the statute does not (and could not) make it a crime to assert a valid constitutional privilege.

The last of these raises another problem. Who decides if a witness has asserted a valid privilege? Put another way, what happens if a witness asserts a privilege and the committee decides that it does not constitute a valid reason for refusing to comply with its demands for information?

Continue reading “Bannon, Garland and Contempt of Congress: Part I (Legal Background)”

Posted on

Is there a House Jail?

A few weeks ago the Levin Center had a very interesting program, which you can watch here, entitled “How the Courts are Shaping Congress’ Power to Investigate.” If you are interested in congressional oversight and investigations, it is definitely worth watching because there have been a lot of cases arising out of the Trump presidency which will have a profound impact on the investigatory power.

There was one moment in particular that made my ears prick up. For context, at about 33:21 in the program, former House General Counsel Doug Letter starts discussing the (hypothetical) possibility the House might need to reinstitute the practice of inherent or direct contempt. Readers of this blog know that this involves a process in which the House (or Senate) directs the Sergeant at Arms to arrest a recalcitrant witness, who is then tried before the bar of the House. As Letter explains: “The House could go back to what it did before, about a hundred years ago, [as in the case of] McGrain v. Daugherty, we can start arresting people and then they can raise, you know, a habeas defense.”

Letter then elaborates that in this (again hypothetical) situation “[w]e are going to start having a big beefed-up Sergeant at Arms office and we are going to go start arresting people and there is a House jail, it will be expanded considerably and we will just arrest people from now on.” (emphasis added).

There is a House jail? This is an issue that comes up now and then. Some people say there is a House jail, but most say that there is not. Katherine Tully-McManus investigated this issue at some length a few years ago. It might seem strange that there could be a division of opinion on such a straightforward factual issue, but I think it depends in part what you mean by “House jail.” It appears there is no place in the Capitol complex which is currently used or usable for holding prisoners for any significant length of time (e.g., overnight). As Tully-McManus’s Capitol Police sources note, there is a holding facility at Capitol Police headquarters on D Street NE. It may be that when the Capitol Police arrest people in the Capitol or congressional office buildings, there is a place they are taken before being transported to the D Street facility, though this is sheer speculation on my part.

When many people talk about the “House jail,” however, they mean some area in the Capitol that was used as a jail back in the days when the House actually imprisoned people. I was once told by a senior congressional staffer that such a place exists and he had seen it. Tully-McManus discusses some possible locations where that might be.

So maybe that is what Letter meant. It sounded, though, like he was referring to some place that could be used immediately for holding prisoners if the Sergeant at Arms were to arrest them. Perhaps he was talking about the D Street facility, although I don’t know whether the Sergeant at Arms would be allowed to house prisoners there or if those prisoners would remain in the SAA’s custody if they were at that facility.

Anyway, I thought this was worth adding to the lore of the House jail.

Posted on

Will the Appointment of a Special Counsel Affect a Congressional Referral of Donald Trump for Contempt of Congress?

The Attorney General has appointed Jack Smith to serve as Special Counsel to conduct an investigation of certain matters relating to former President Donald Trump, including “whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021, as well as any matters that arose or might arise directly from this investigation or that are within the scope of 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a).” The regulations at 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a) provide that “[t]he jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.”

This jurisdiction does not appear to cover a potential certification by the House, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §194, of Trump’s failure to appear and/or produce documents in response to the subpoena from the January 6 select committee. Although that subpoena relates to the subject of the Special Counsel’s January 6 investigation and Trump’s defiance of the subpoena constitutes a possible violation of law, I doubt that violation of law in 2022 would be considered to be “in connection with” efforts to interfere with the transfer of power or electoral vote count in late 2020 and early 2021 within the meaning of the appointment order. Similarly, while contempt of Congress under 2 U.S.C. §192 is a violation of law and a federal misdemeanor, Trump’s contempt arose from the congressional investigation, not from either the Special Counsel’s investigation or the prior federal criminal investigation over which he is assuming control. Thus, the Special Counsel will probably not be able to assert direct jurisdiction over such a contempt certification.

However, 28 C.F.R. §600.4(b) provides that “[i]f in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.” Thus, were the Special Counsel to determine that expanding his jurisdiction to include a congressional contempt referral is appropriate under the terms of 28 C.F.R. §600.4(b), it would be up to the Attorney General to make that decision.

It seems to me that there is enough of a link between the Special Counsel’s investigation and a contempt referral of Trump to support an expansion of the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction under this somewhat nebulous standard. After all, the committee’s subpoena relates to factual matters which are directly relevant to the Special Counsel’s investigation, and it may advance that investigation to determine why Trump withheld testimony and documents from the committee. Moreover, a separate part of the Special Counsel’s investigation relates to Trump’s failure to cooperate with government efforts to retrieve classified and other official documents in his possession and Trump’s possible obstruction of a grand jury investigation by failure to produce documents responsive to its subpoena. His refusal to comply with the January 6 committee’s subpoena therefore may demonstrate a pattern of illegal behavior.

Even if the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction were expanded, this does not necessarily mean Trump will be prosecuted for contempt of Congress. The Special Counsel regulations require that the Special Counsel ordinarily “comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice.” 28 C.F.R. §600.7(a). This is the provision that (arguably) prevented Special Counsel Mueller from indicting then-President Trump due to the Office of Legal Counsel’s determination that the Constitution prohibits indictment of a sitting president. Similarly, Special Counsel Smith might be prohibited from prosecuting Trump for invoking testimonial immunity because of the longstanding DOJ/OLC view that a former president is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony.

There are, however, several reasons why this view may not (and probably should not) bind Smith. First (and most dubiously), there is the argument (also made with respect to Mueller) that a special counsel is not bound by OLC opinions but is free to reach his or her own conclusions on constitutional questions. Second, although the view that a former president enjoys absolute testimonial immunity has been reflected in opinions and pleadings, it has not to my knowledge been the subject of a formal analysis and opinion by OLC (or DOJ). Thus, in contrast to OLC’s formal opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, the department’s position on absolute immunity for former presidents may be fairly characterized as more of an assumption than a definitive opinion. Third (and most importantly), OLC has always viewed the scope of absolute immunity to be limited to official activities. Here there is ample room for the Special Counsel to conclude that at least some of the matters about which the January 6 committee wishes to question Trump are political or personal, rather than official. [Note that if Trump’s legal team takes the position in the litigation over classified documents and presidential records that certain documents in his possession should be considered personal or political, this may cut against his interests here].

Furthermore, even if Smith concludes that Trump is protected by absolute testimonial immunity, this would not prevent prosecution with regard to Trump’s withholding of documents responsive to the congressional subpoena. While there are no doubt those at main Justice who would be reluctant to prosecute a former president for asserting invalid but non-frivolous objections to a congressional document subpoena, these concerns would not appear to rise to the level of a practice or policy that would be binding upon the Special Counsel.

For all of these reasons the appointment of a special counsel makes it substantially more likely that a certification under 2 U.S.C. §194 could actually result in a criminal prosecution of the former president. The January 6 committee should take this into account in deciding how to proceed with regard to Trump’s defiance of its subpoena.

Posted on

How Should the January 6 Committee Respond to Trump’s Lawsuit?

On Friday, November 11, former President Trump filed suit against the January 6 committee to prevent enforcement of the subpoena for documents and testimony the committee issued to him on October 21. The complaint asserts that as a former president Trump is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony (at least outside the realm of impeachment). In addition, it alleges that the subpoena is invalid for a number of reasons, including that it was not issued for a valid legislative purpose, that it fails the heightened standard of scrutiny established by the Supreme Court for subpoenas of presidential information, and that the January 6 committee lacked authority to issue subpoenas because it was improperly constituted.

All of these claims, in my view, should lose, and I think they all probably would if the litigation ever resulted in a final judgment on the merits. However, as Trump’s lawyers well understand, there is very little chance of that happening before the January 6 committee expires at the end of this Congress, which will most likely moot the case. For Trump’s legal team, the advantage of this lawsuit is that it will buy time and possibly forestall a contempt vote in the House. Continue reading “How Should the January 6 Committee Respond to Trump’s Lawsuit?”

Posted on

Some Thoughts on the January 6 Committee Subpoena to Former President Trump

As you may have heard, the January 6 select committee has adopted a resolution authorizing its chair to issue a subpoena for documents and testimony under oath to former President Donald Trump. This action raises some legal, political and practical issues, which are considered below.

Is a former president immune from a congressional subpoena? The answer to this question is pretty clearly no. It has been well-established since Watergate that even sitting presidents are subject to judicial subpoena and, as the D.C. Circuit recently observed, its own precedent from that era “strongly implies that [sitting] Presidents enjoy no blanket immunity from congressional subpoenas.” Trump v. Mazars U.S., LLP, 940 F.3d 710, 722 (D.C. Cir. 2019), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 140 S.Ct. 2019 (2020). It is therefore very unlikely that former presidents would be found to enjoy such blanket immunity.

Is a former president absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony about his official activities? For reasons I have discussed before, the answer to this question should be no, although I acknowledge there are good reasons why Congress should be (and historically has been) reluctant to compel the appearance of former presidents except in extraordinary circumstances. Continue reading “Some Thoughts on the January 6 Committee Subpoena to Former President Trump”

Posted on

More on Bannon and OLC

In connection with my last post, I want to elaborate on Steve Bannon’s advice of counsel defense. The essence of this defense is that legal advice from his counsel that he was not obligated to comply with the select committee’s subpoena negated the “willfulness” required to violate the contempt of Congress statute (2 U.S.C. §192). Leaving aside the question whether this is a valid legal defense (spoiler alert: it is not), Bannon claims that this defense is bolstered by Office of Legal Counsel opinions which he interprets to excuse him from compliance with the select committee’s subpoena. For example, in his discovery motion, Bannon states “[Bannon’s lawyer] consistently advised the Government that Mr. Bannon was acting in accordance with legal opinions issued by the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, which analyzed the issues under analogous circumstances.”

The significance of the OLC opinions to the purported defense is unclear. One possibility is that Bannon was directly relying on the OLC opinions themselves, rather than simply on his lawyer’s interpretation of them. Another possibility is that the OLC opinions are cited to bolster the reasonableness of the legal advice the lawyer (Robert Costello) provided his client.

Bannon may also be trying to advance something of a slippery slope argument. If he cannot rely directly or indirectly on OLC opinions, then what of executive officials who receive an OLC opinion that specifically advises they need not comply with a congressional subpoena? This is the scenario that Judge Nichols was apparently concerned about when he posed a hypothetical in which Ron Klain refuses to testify based on OLC advice that he has absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony. In this situation, Nichols asked, could DOJ advise Klain he is immune and then turn around and prosecute him for defying the congressional subpoena?

Continue reading “More on Bannon and OLC”

Posted on

Should Judge Nichols Recuse Himself in the Bannon Case?

Many moons ago the Justice Department first presented in court its legal theory that senior White House aides are absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony with regard to their official duties. Although the DOJ attorney who argued the case did a pretty good job, he was unsuccessful in persuading the district court, which rejected the theory in no uncertain terms. See Comm. on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 99 (D.D.C. 2008) (Bates, J.) (“[T]he asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law.”). More than a decade later, another district judge, who is currently nominated to sit on the Supreme Court, strongly agreed, finding that “the Miers court rightly determined not only that the principle of absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level presidential aides has no foundation in law, but also that such a proposition conflicts with key tenets of our constitutional order.” Comm. on the Judiciary v. McGahn, 415 F. Supp. 3d 148, 202-03 (D.D.C. 2019) (Ketanji Brown Jackson, J.). Although neither Miers nor McGahn resulted in an appellate decision on the merits, two D.C. Circuit judges wrote opinions strongly questioning or rejecting outright the absolute immunity theory, while not a single judge has expressed any degree of support for it. See Comm. on the Judiciary v. McGahn, 973 F.3d 121, 131 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (Rogers, J., dissenting) (McGahn’s claim of testimonial immunity is foreclosed by precedent); Comm. on the Judiciary v. McGahn, 951 F.3d 510, 536-40 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (Henderson, J., concurring) (explaining at some length why McGahn’s claim of immunity rests on a “shaky foundation”).

As fate and the random assignment system would have it, the DOJ attorney from the Miers case, Carl Nichols, is now himself a federal judge presiding over two high profile cases in which testimonial immunity may be an issue. Both cases arise out of the January 6 select committee investigation. The first is the prosecution of Steve Bannon for refusing to comply with the select committee’s subpoena for documents and testimony. The second is a lawsuit filed by Mark Meadows against the select committee seeking to prohibit the enforcement of subpoenas issued to him and his telecommunications provider. Among the grounds asserted by Meadows for invalidating the testimonial aspects of the subpoena directed at him was that it “contravene[d] Mr. Meadows’ testimonial immunity as a senior executive official.” Meadows Complaint ¶ 153.

Back in November a Politico article by Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein discussed whether Judge Nichols should recuse himself from the Bannon case (the Meadows lawsuit had not yet been filed) due to his participation in Miers.  According to former House Counsel Irv Nathan, who argued Miers for the House and is quoted in the piece, Nichols should have considered recusing himself because of the similarity of the issues in the two cases. Nathan explained that in Miers Nichols had “argued that a witness, a private citizen (a former Executive Branch official) following the direction of a President, need not comply with a Congressional subpoena and could refuse even to show up, produce any documents or even itemize the documents alleged to be privileged.” This in his view would undermine the judge’s appearance of impartiality in presiding over the Bannon trial.

Continue reading “Should Judge Nichols Recuse Himself in the Bannon Case?”

Posted on

ACTUALLY CRIMINAL CONTEMPT MIGHT WORK PRETTY WELL RIGHT ABOUT NOW

I will take the occasion of a tweet by Representative Ted Lieu to make a point so obvious it may have been overlooked. Representative Lieu was responding to a question about why House Democrats have not subpoenaed the administrator of GSA (Emily Murphy, who goes by the adorable twitter handle of @GSAEmily) to ask her why she has not yet ascertained “the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President” in accordance with the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. § 102 note). Lieu explained:

CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS ARE MEANINGLESS BECAUSE WE CANNOT ENFORCE THEM.

(You can tell he is serious by the all-caps). Lieu goes on to say that GSA would simply ignore a subpoena, and that the House should change its rules to authorize inherent contempt, which would allow the sergeant-at-arms to arrest Murphy or other recalcitrant witnesses and bring them before a committee to testify (and, if they refuse, to try them for contempt before the bar of the House).

Now no one is more concerned than I about the impotence of congressional compulsory process with respect to the executive branch. All options for addressing that problem, including the revival of inherent contempt, should be on table for discussion.

However, the most important thing that the House could do right now to restore respect for its process would be to use the criminal contempt procedure set forth in 2 U.S.C. § 194. Under that provision, when a witness fails to appear, answer questions or produce documents in a congressional investigation, the House or Senate may refer the matter “to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”

As we have frequently discussed, this provision is normally of little value with regard to executive branch witnesses because the Justice Department, despite the apparently mandatory language of the law, takes the position that it does not require it to take action when a witness asserts an official privilege at the president’s direction. Of course, ordinarily the Justice Department that makes the decision on prosecution is the same as the one that advised the president with regard to assertion of the privilege in the first place. That circumstance does not obtain today. There will be (at least if my twitter feed is to be believed)  a new administration come January 20, 2021, which may be willing to move forward with congressional contempt prosecutions of executive officials (or former executive officials), at least under certain conditions.

In the case of Murphy, for example, there are no grounds that I am aware of, even under the views previously articulated by OLC, for her to refuse to even appear before a congressional committee to discuss her statutory duties with regard to the transition. If she were to simply ignore a subpoena to appear, as Lieu suggests she would, she would be taking a very big risk that a new U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia (the “appropriate” U.S. attorney in this and almost all contempt cases) would decide to prosecute her. I suspect that she would in fact appear pursuant to a subpoena, but if she doesn’t, the House should certainly refer her for prosecution. (If she shows up but refuses to answer particular questions, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.)

Apart from Murphy, the House should be looking at strong contempt cases which could be referred now to the U.S. attorney. Presumably the current (acting) U.S. attorney will take no action on them, but as far as I know there is no way for him to prevent his successor from doing so. If the incoming Biden Justice Department is willing to prosecute one or more of the most egregious cases of executive contempt, that may go some way to restoring effective deterrence. And if it is not willing to do so, that will tell us something as well.