Send this page to someone via email A U.S. House committee voted on Wednesday approving a measure to hold U.S. Attorney General William Barr in “contempt of Congress.” What does that mean? Congress has significant, if time-consuming, powers to demand witnesses and documents. One of these is the contempt citation. READ MORE: House committee votes to hold Barr in contempt as Trump asserts executive privilege Democrats in the House of Representatives are threatening to use it on multiple fronts, including against Barr for ignoring a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee seeking an unredacted version of the Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and President Donald Trump. WATCH: Sarah Sanders slams Congress over contempt vote against Barr 2:29 Mueller report: Sanders slams Congress over contempt vote against Barr Mueller report: Sanders slams Congress over contempt vote against Barr – May 8, 2019 ​ Trump and his administration are stonewalling several inquiries being led by House Democrats into his administration, his family and his business interests. Story continues below advertisement Here is how the congressional subpoena, contempt and enforcement process works. What is a subpoena? A subpoena is a legally enforceable demand for documents,data, or witness testimony. Subpoenas are typically used by litigants in court cases. The Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s power to issue subpoenas, saying in order to write laws it also needs to be able to investigate. READ MORE: Donald Trump invokes executive privilege over Mueller report Congress’ power to issue subpoenas, while broad, is not unlimited. The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. A subpoena must potentially further some “legitimate legislative purpose,” the court has said. What can Congress do to a government official who ignores a subpoena? If lawmakers want to punish someone who ignores a congressional subpoena they typically first hold the offender”in contempt of Congress,” legal experts said. The contempt process can start in either the House or the Senate. Unlike with legislation, it only takes one of the chambers to make and enforce a contempt citation. Typically, the members of the congressional committee that issued the subpoena will vote on whether to move forward with a contempt finding. Story continues below advertisement WATCH: White House says Robert Mueller shouldn’t have to testify since report has already been released 1:33 White House: Robert Mueller shouldn’t have to testify since his report has already been released White House: Robert Mueller shouldn’t have to testify since his report has already been released – May 7, 2019 If a majority supports the resolution, then another vote will be held by the entire chamber. The Democrats have majority control of the House; Trump’s Republican Party holds the Senate. Only a majority of the 435-member House needs to support a contempt finding for one to be reached. After a contempt vote, Congress has powers to enforce a subpoena. How is a contempt finding enforced? The Supreme Court said in 1821 that Congress has “inherent authority” to arrest and detain recalcitrant witnesses. In 1927, the high court said the Senate acted lawfully in sending its deputy sergeant-at-arms to Ohio to arrest and detain the brother of the then-attorney general, who had refused to testify about a bribery scheme known as the Teapot Dome scandal. Story continues below advertisement It has been almost a century since Congress exercised this arrest-and-detain authority, and the practice is unlikely to make a comeback, legal experts said. WATCH: Pelosi says committees acting ‘patriotically’, says more contempt hearings may be coming 2:09 Pelosi says committees acting ‘patriotically’, says more contempt Pelosi says committees acting ‘patriotically’, says more contempt – May 9, 2019 Alternatively, Congress can ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a federal prosecutor, to bring criminal charges against a witness who refuses to appear. There is a criminal law that specifically prohibits flouting a congressional subpoena. But this option is also unlikely to be pursued, at least when it comes to subpoenas against executive branch officials, given that federal prosecutors are part of the branch’s Justice Department. WATCH: Nancy Pelosi on holding William Barr in contempt — nothing is off the table 1:05 Nancy Pelosi on charging William Barr with contempt: Nothing is off the table Nancy Pelosi on charging William Barr with contempt: Nothing is off the table – May 8, 2019 “It would be odd, structurally, because it would mean the Trump administration would be acting to enforce subpoenas against the Trump administration,” said Lisa Kern Griffin, a former federal prosecutor and a law professor at Duke University. Story continues below advertisement For this reason, in modern times Congress has opted for a third and final approach to enforcing a contempt finding: getting its lawyers to bring a civil lawsuit asking a judge to rule that compliance is required. Failure to comply with such an order can trigger a “contempt of court” finding, enforced through daily fines and even imprisonment, Griffin said. -With a file from Global News<doc-sep>House Judiciary Committee Democrats voted Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, citing a refusal by the Trump administration — which has asserted executive privilege — to provide lawmakers with an unredacted copy of special counsel Robert Mueller's report. But what does holding someone in contempt of Congress mean? Here are the answers to five key questions about the concept. 1. What is contempt of Congress? Congress can vote to hold a person "in contempt" if that person refuses to testify, won't provide information requested by the House or the Senate, or obstructs an inquiry by a congressional committee. Congress' power to hold someone in contempt may be used to "coerce compliance" with its demands, punish a person or remove an obstruction to the inquiry or proceeding, according to the Congressional Research Service. The authority is not specifically laid out in the Constitution, but it is considered an implied power of Congress, according to the CRS. Congress can pursue a criminal or a civil contempt citation. Under a rarely used doctrine known as "inherent contempt," the House or the Senate could send members of its security force — the sergeant at arms — to arrest and detain the witness. This power, however, hasn't been used since 1934, when William MacCracken, a former member of President Herbert Hoover's administration, was arrested and held under a warrant after he declined to appear before the Senate. According to The Washington Post, the Senate sergeant at arms did not have a place to hold MacCracken, who was later put up at a nearby hotel. 2. Who has been held in contempt? When Republicans controlled the House in 2012, they voted to hold President Barack Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, in contempt over the administration's refusal to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal. The Obama Justice Department would not prosecute Holder, resulting in a protracted legal battle; it wasn't until January 2016 that a federal judge ordered the Justice Department to produce some documents. The Obama administration appealed, and the case lingered until President Donald Trump took office. Whilethe Trump Justice Department agreed to release some records in March 2018, the litigation was finally resolved only Wednesday after both sides ended a dispute over some of the judge's decisions. In 2008, a Democrat-controlled House voted to hold President George W. Bush's former White House counsel Harriet Miers and chief of staff Josh Bolten in contempt after the White House, citing executive privilege, directed them not to comply with subpoenas for documents related to a congressional investigation into the firing of several U.S. attorneys. The speaker of the House asked the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., to pursue the matter, but the federal prosecutor declined, citing a Justice Department policy of not prosecuting a White House official for criminal contempt of Congress if that official had invoked executive privilege at the behest of the president. Congress sued, and a district court judge sided with lawmakers. The Bush administration appealed, and while the case was still pending, Obama took office. The new administration then settled the case, granting Congress access to some of the documents it sought and allowing sworn testimony from Miers. By then, a year and a half after Congress issued the subpoena, the oversight issue largely was moot. Other Cabinet-level or senior executive branch officials cited for contempt in recent history include Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Commerce Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton in 1975; Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph A. Califano Jr. in 1978; Energy Secretary Charles Duncan in 1980; Energy Secretary James B. Edwards in 1981; Interior Secretary James Watt in 1982; Anne Gorsuch Burford (Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's mother) and Attorney General William French Smith in 1983; White House Counsel John M. Quinn in 1996; and Attorney General Janet Reno in 1998. 3. How does it happen? After members of the House Judiciary Committee concluded their markup discussion over the resolution to hold Barr in contempt Wednesday, the panel voted on the resolution. The resolution now could go to a vote in the full House. Only a simple majority is needed to advance the contempt resolution, and only one chamber needs to approve the measure for a person to be prosecuted for contempt. With a criminal contempt citation, the House would refer the citation to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, which can seek an indictment from a grand jury. All federal prosecutors, including all 90-plus U.S. attorneys, work for Barr, however, and would be under no obligation to pursue a contempt charge. With a civil contempt citation, Congress would basically sue Barr in district court. 4. What comes next? Now that the Judiciary Committee has approved the contempt resolution, the full House could vote on the measure, with the timing of that up to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Speaking at a Washington Post event Wednesday, Pelosi said that the attorney general "should be held in contempt," something she had declined to weigh in on as recently as Tuesday. Although a criminal contempt citation could be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, federal prosecutors would be unlikely to pursue charges against their boss. The contempt resolution is unlikely to result in any substantive action against Barr given the recent history of how contempt charges have played out in the court system. Contempt of Congress is technically a federal misdemeanor, and if prosecuted, Barr would technically face up to a $100,000 fine and a one-year sentence in federal prison, although both outcomes are highly unlikely. Congress also has the option to pursue a civil contempt citation from a judge. The Judiciary Committee, for example, could sue Barr in district court, provided that a simple majority of the full House voted to authorize such an action. "If the individual still refuses to comply, he may be tried by the court in summary proceedings for contempt of court, with sanctions being imposed to coerce their compliance," the Congressional Research Service said in a 2017 paper. 5. How did we get here? On April 19, committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., issued a subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report and key underlying evidence, giving the Justice Department a May 1 deadline to comply. The same day, Nadler and other top Democrats rejected a limited offer from Barr to allow 12 members of Congress to view a less-redacted version of the report in person but prohibit them from discussing it with other members of Congress. On May 1, Barr sent a letter to Nadler explaining his reasons for not submitting the report. The attorney general was scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee the following day but declined to appear. On May 3, Nadler wrote Barr asking him to make a good faith effort to comply with the subpoena by Monday. That deadline was missed, and the same day, the committee announced a markup of a contempt citation for the attorney general. Later that day, the Justice Department proposed a meeting with the committee Wednesday to negotiate "an acceptable accommodation" on access to the full report. But on Wednesday, Trump asserted executive privilege over the report, and the committee initiated contempt proceedings against Barr. The Justice Department had told lawmakers Tuesday ahead of the session that it would recommend that Trump assert executive privilege to that material.<doc-sep>The House Judiciary Committee has just voted in favor of holding Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress. So how big of a deal is that, and what happens next? After Wednesday's vote, which came as President Trump asserted executive privilege over Special Counsel Robert Mueller's unredacted report, the entire House of Representatives now has to take a vote on the contempt resolution. Should the House pass it, ABC News explains, the contempt citation would be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, at which point it would likely not go any further into prosecution. For this reason, CNN notes, the contempt citation won't actually change much, though it's a dramatic escalation of the fight between Congress and the Trump administration. None of this is unprecedented, exactly. During former President Barack Obama's administration, then Attorney General Eric Holder was also held in contempt of Congress after withholding documents related to Operation Fast and Furious. There was plenty of Republican outrage as the contempt resolution was passed, but in the end, Holder was not prosecuted, and he remained in office. However, Vox notes that what would be more significant is if Congress passes a resolution to proceed with a lawsuit against Barr to obtain the unredacted Mueller report, during which Barr could be held in contempt of court. That could be next, meaning that although Wednesday's vote on its own is not exactly Earth-shattering, the fight is likely far from over.<doc-sep>
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said there may be more contempt-of-Congress citations coming in the ongoing, unprecedented power struggle with the president, who's said he intends to fight "all of the subpoenas" issued by House Democrats. The scope and nature of Congress' powers to investigate are at the heart of the battle that appears destined to end up in the courts. Already President Donald Trump's own attorneys have gone to court, suing to block their client's financial records from being released by his accountants and banks, pursuant to a subpoena by the House Oversight and Reform Committee. The subpoena is normally a powerful tool through which Congress obtains investigative material. But when a subpoena to the executive branch is ignored or not complied with, it sets up a constitutional standoff. Pelosi on Thursday called it a "constitutional crisis." How does contempt work, and what does executive privilege have to do with it? A contempt citation is Congress' tool to try to force compliance with a subpoena. It takes a vote of the full House on a contempt resolution -- a simple majority vote -- before someone can be said to be in contempt of Congress. If the recipient of a subpoena does not comply, that person could be held to have violated the contempt statute -- a criminal violation. But if that recipient is a federal government official, and has been told by the president not to comply, an assertion of executive privilege is one of the ways that person would be protected from criminal contempt. Hence, the White House's assertion of executive privilege on Wednesday over the entire Mueller report. That move covered Attorney General William Barr from any criminal liability should the House uphold the House Judiciary Committee vote to hold Barr in contempt. Normally, Congress would refer any contempt citation to the U.S. Attorney in Washington, but in this case it would not result in any further criminal prosecution. John Bies, a Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel veteran who dealt with many Congressional standoffs, explains, "Under a long-standing DOJ position on the contempt statute, anyone acting at the direction of a president cannot be held criminally liable." The U.S. Attorney, in Barr's case, would, therefore, be expected to refuse prosecution, according to Bies, now chief counsel at American Oversight. There's still a chance the committee could reach an accommodation with the DOJ on the Mueller report. "There could be further negotiations between now and then between the two branches. And so, perhaps, the house doesn't even get to that vote [of contempt]," said Brookings' Margaret Taylor, a former Democratic chief counsel and deputy staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But if there is no agreement, it's likely full steam ahead with contempt. So if Barr is protected from criminal contempt, is a contempt vote by Congress a moot point? No. Barr cannot be criminally prosecuted, but he could still be held in contempt of Congress. And Congress often holds someone in contempt in conjunction with a vote to authorize civil litigation to enforce a subpoena, according to Bies. Republicans did this when they held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for spurning their demands in their investigation of a federal gun-running scheme known as Operation Fast and Furious. The U.S. Attorney at the time never prosecuted Holder, because he was protected by an assertion of executive privilege by the Obama White House. It is perhaps notable, however, that it took 3 1/2 years for Republicans to win their fight against the administration as the case wended its way through the legal system. Traditionally, though, instead of the House voting to authorize civil litigation, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group does so. This five-member House leadership panel -- weighted to the majority -- can vote to direct the general counsel of the House to sue to have a subpoena enforced. Another option available to Congress, of course, through the Constitution, is the power of impeachment. For now, Democratic leaders are staying far from it, but it's worth remembering that one of the articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon was contempt of Congress. Why was Trump's claim of executive privilege on Wednesday so broad? The president asserted a kind of blanket protective executive privilege over the unredacted Mueller report on Wednesday. It was something of a placeholder, according to Bies, and the assertion would ultimately need to be laid out in detail.