Can Bush and/or Cheney go to jail for Contempt of Congress?

[PhilipShore]

I am not a lawyer, but is it technically possible -- that if Congress asks Bush and/or Cheney to testify and produce documents, and they refuse -- either one could go to jail for Contempt of Congress, therefore making impeachment unnecessary?


ABC News
Jan. 30, 2007
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=2834224

Democrats Will Hold President's Feet to the Fire in Upcoming Hearings


Contempt of Congress
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

In the federal law of the United States, contempt of Congress is the crime of obstructing the work of United States Congress, with a punishment of up to one year in prison and up to $1,000 in fines.

The United States Congress generally brings this action for refusing to testify before a Congressional committee, or failing to provide a committee with requested documents.

[USA_1]

1. Yes It Can ...

... but will it have the integrity and the guts to do so. That is the real question.

[bryant69]

2. IF they had the guts and integrity to do this, they'd impeach

I think the answer's no.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Art_from_Ark]

4. It makes me wonder what they're serving in the Capitol cafeteria

Jim Jones kool-aid, perhaps?

[illinoisprogressive]

3. I believe some Watergate actors did for Contempt of Congress

[Kagemusha]

5. They weren't Presidents or Vice-Presidents

If it went to the courts, there's a legitimate argument to be made that - I'm not saying it's necessarily correct, but I'll say it's a legitimate argument - that separation of powers should prevent either Congress using its own stand-alone authority, which only applies to the halls of Congress itself (which the President rarely visits in the first place), or a criminal trial for which the result might be the jailing of a President or Vice-President on a judge's authority, without having first been impeached and removed from public office. Impeachment is the proper constitutional action. Shortcuts aren't likely to work well.

[PhilipShore]

6. Perhaps the Dems now want to start to impeach...

because Bush and Cheney will refuse to produce any documents -- that seems clear -- and it seems to me the powerful Dems that chair the committees, would not of asked the questions -- to begin with, and not expect to receive the documents.

[AllegroRondo]

8. I believe you are correct

the only action Congress can take is impeachment.

[Kagemusha]

9. My point's that impeachment/removal is a prerequisite for later actions

and unless Congress does impeachment & removal first, those later actions are highly unlikely to occur.

[seafan]

7. John Dean: "...only IF the 110th Congress has the will...",

Will this Congress have the will?? It all comes down to that question.

Thus, if the 110th Congress, controlled by the Democrats, fails to get the information it needs -- and the public wants -- about the workings of the Bush/Cheney presidency, it will not be because it does not have the tools with which to obtain that information. Rather, it will be because it lacks the will to use those tools. ---John Dean, December 29, 2006

Let's light the fire under these people!

[PhilipShore]

10. Dean:...there are no rules!

What Should Congressional Democrats Do, When the Bush Administration Stonewalls Their Efforts To Undertake Oversight?:
Part Two in a Three-Part Series
By JOHN W. DEAN
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061229.html
----
Friday, Dec. 29, 2006

"We see a war coming on Capitol Hill," a well-connected Republican attorney based in Washington recently told me, as I reported in my last column on the subject. The clash is not surprising, because Vice President Dick Cheney -- who is at the center of many of the subjects the Democratic Congress will be investigating -- is strongly opposed to Congress's inquiring into these areas. He believes the power of the presidency is at stake. Accordingly, as I noted earlier, he has made it quite clear that he is not going to cooperate with these investigations.

Before the conflict develops, it might seem helpful to go over the rules of the game -- to appreciate who is on solid ground, who is on shaky ground, and why this is the case. But as it happens, there are no rules!

That is, there is simply no well-established law of the land regarding what Congress can require a president, or a vice president, to provide them. Similarly, there is no well-settled law regarding what the president can, and cannot, withhold from Congress by citing "executive privilege" or other rationales. Thus, while this ground has been traveled many times, it still remains essentially uncharted.