Timeline for What happens if the US Attorney General refuses to comply with the legislative branch?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2019 at 0:21 | vote | accept | DanSchneiderNA | ||
| May 6, 2019 at 22:02 | comment | added | grovkin | @phoog from a pragmatic perspective, you are probably right. | |
| May 6, 2019 at 20:45 | comment | added | phoog | @grovkin Yes, it would be a possible defense. But it would not cease to be a possible defense at any future time, so I don't see why it matters that a future AG could in theory decide to prosecute. My point is that they will continue to refrain from prosecution because prosecuting would imply that they do not agree with the theory of executive privilege, and that would open the new AG up to potential prosecutions as well. | |
| May 6, 2019 at 19:16 | comment | added | grovkin | @phoog wouldn't executive privilege be a possible defense at a trial? Given that such a defense exists, DOJ can elect not to press it. But if the contempt does not expire when the Congress does, the charge can be pressed at any future time, could it not? | |
| May 6, 2019 at 16:35 | comment | added | phoog | @grovkin who would prosecute? The justice department would not want to, because they do not want to abandon the theory that they are protected by executive privilege. | |
| May 5, 2019 at 5:58 | history | edited | Denis de Bernardy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 65 characters in body
|
| May 5, 2019 at 5:48 | comment | added | grovkin | The answer should mention whether Holder is still considered in contempt. I believe the contempt expires when the Congress ends. But I am not certain. If it doesn't expire, Holder could still be prosecutable because his contempt is a matter of record. | |
| May 5, 2019 at 5:35 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | It's probably worth noting that this was contempt of congress via a specific federal law that makes it a crime. This is not required for Congress to hold and convict someone in contempt. SCOTUS has held this to be an intrinsic power of the legislative branch. The passage and usual resort to the law was simply because the political optics of Congress doing it themselves became unpalatable. | |
| May 5, 2019 at 4:11 | comment | added | Sjoerd | @JJJ What has this to do with this answer? If you think it's possible to write a better answer, please do so. | |
| May 5, 2019 at 4:10 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | @Sjoerd people have been impeached before and no doubt will be again. It's not some fairy tale thing that never happens. ;) | |
| May 5, 2019 at 4:07 | comment | added | Sjoerd | @JJJ That needs two-third majority in the Senate to succeed. The Democrats had enough senators to prevent the conviction. | |
| May 5, 2019 at 3:16 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | The Congress could have impeached Holder, right? If I understand correctly, they didn't. | |
| May 5, 2019 at 2:20 | history | answered | Denis de Bernardy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |