• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

First Agency Head to Be Held in Contempt of Congress

Rexedgar

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
63,138
Reaction score
52,790
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I was researching a reply to a post in another thread and learned some Constitutional history in the process.

Anne Gorsuch Burford - Wikipedia

Yeah, that Gorsuch.

From the link - In 1982, Congress charged that the EPA had mishandled the $1.6 billion toxic waste Superfund and demanded records from Gorsuch. Gorsuch refused and became the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress. The EPA turned the documents over to Congress several months later, after the White House abandoned its court claim that the documents could not be subpoenaed by Congress because they were covered by executive privilege. At that point, Gorsuch resigned her post, citing pressures caused by the media and the congressional investigation.-edited to remove footnote references.

Executive privilege didn’t work in this case.
 
SCOTUS ruled in 1974 - United States vs. Richard Nixon - that Executive Privilege cannot be used to hide, sequester, and/or otherwise protect criminal activity.
 
Rexedgar said:
I was researching a reply to a post in another thread and learned some Constitutional history in the process.

Anne Gorsuch Burford - Wikipedia

Yeah, that Gorsuch.

From the link - In 1982, Congress charged that the EPA had mishandled the $1.6 billion toxic waste Superfund and demanded records from Gorsuch. Gorsuch refused and became the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress. The EPA turned the documents over to Congress several months later, after the White House abandoned its court claim that the documents could not be subpoenaed by Congress because they were covered by executive privilege. At that point, Gorsuch resigned her post, citing pressures caused by the media and the congressional investigation.-edited to remove footnote references.

Executive privilege didn’t work in this case.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, that is oversight, which is a legitimate exercise of congressional subpoena power.
 
Rich2018 said:
Who is to say it is "criminal"
Click to expand...

And you actually nailed it on the head. There is a distinct difference between a criminal investigation and Congress exercising its oversight responsibilities. A court will read more narrowly a congressional subpoena versus a criminal subpoena. The first question being, does this particular congressional body have oversight authority over the executive body to which the subpoena is issued?
 
clapee said:
And you actually nailed it on the head. There is a distinct difference between a criminal investigation and Congress exercising its oversight responsibilities. A court will read more narrowly a congressional subpoena versus a criminal subpoena. The first question being, does this particular congressional body have oversight authority over the executive body to which the subpoena is issued?
Click to expand...

Sorry, my friend, but you have that backwards. A court will read a criminal subpoena more narrowly. It is required to. Congress' authority is much broader.
 
NWRatCon said:
Sorry, my friend, but you have that backwards. A court will read a criminal subpoena more narrowly. It is required to. Congress' authority is much broader.
Click to expand...

You know, I fired from the hip on that one. I don’t know if that’s true. I’ll do some research and report back. My gut tells me I’m right, but we’ll see.
 
clapee said:
And you actually nailed it on the head. There is a distinct difference between a criminal investigation and Congress exercising its oversight responsibilities. A court will read more narrowly a congressional subpoena versus a criminal subpoena. The first question being, does this particular congressional body have oversight authority over the executive body to which the subpoena is issued?
Click to expand...

I think all Congressional hearing be mandatory and supersede all declarations of confidentiality, and laws below the Constitution.

In cases of national security, the 5th amendment should be suspended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom