How can Congress force General Flynn to testify if he refuses?

[kentuck]

I suppose he now knows that the DOJ will not prosecute and he has probably been offered a pardon by Trump?

Can the Congress get a judge to validate a subpoena before it is delivered? Or is that illegal?

Otherwise, what options does the Congress have if General Flynn continues to defy subpoenas?

[hlthe2b]

1. They are going to have to get the nerve to revive their long dormant inherent contempt powers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Inherent_contempt

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation).[10]

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by Vice President John Nance Garner, in his capacity as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who was charged with allowing clients to remove or rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.[11]

MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken.[12][13]

Presidential pardons appear not to apply to a civil contempt procedure such as the above, since it is not an "offense against the United States" or against "the dignity of public authority."[14]
Statutory proceedings

[StarfishSaver]

2. It's very unlikely they'll arrest him and haul him to the house chamber

And not because they lack nerve but
because, aside from the difficulty in physically detaining and transporting him, while such political theater might be satisfying to some, it would make a mockery of the whole process.

The more plausible scenario would be for them to use their inherent contempt power to impose a fine. But the most likely and more effective alternative is for them to obtain a court order and let the courts enforce its order or find the witness in contempt of court.

[hlthe2b]

3. I don't understand your subject line, but arguably it is RW contempt for the process that is making

a mockery of the Congress, the law and the process. As with the case wheren the law that specifically requires IRS commissioner to turn over tax returns, when the law is being overtly disregarded and a lawless executive is the rule, the Congress MUST look to all its authorized powers. Although dormant and less than practical, this is one. Again, I have not a clue what your subject line meant (i.e., It's very unlikely they'll arrest him in all him Jouse chamber" ), but what is your alternative solution?

[StarfishSaver]

5. You didn't understand that? Lol

That's what happens when I use voice dictation and don't proof before hitting send. I corrected it.

Sending the sergeant at arms to arrest people and drag them to the House chamber isn't going to make them testify. It's just a big show that won't have any results other than making the Democrats look ridiculous. and any witness threatened with such an action would likely get a restraining order before it could be carried out. It wouldn't get us any closer to gathering information needed to be. It would just be a circus.

The better course of action is, as I said, is to go to court to have them enforce the subpoena

[kentuck]

6. That seems the logical route.

If he chooses to ignore a court order, it is a different matter. However, it is disturbing the way they have chosen to discredit and de-legitimize the authority of the US Congress.

[hlthe2b]

10. Which has been Congress' tactic since the vote to approve on June 11.

So, courts are clearly not fast-tracking these cases, including those against McGahn, William Barr, and several others.

[StarfishSaver]

11. The courts actually have fast-tracked this

A few months from initial complaint to decision is very fast.

[hlthe2b]

14. Case number please. Not on the subpoeanas they have not. On other matters, yes.

As stated before, I know of no major subpoena (e.g., McGahn, Barr, or others) that has been enforced by the courts as yet. Given the timing from Jaworski's first subpoena of Nixon's tapes in Watergate to the SCOTUS final written decision was less than four months, there is no evidence that the courts are expediting these subpoena cases. The vote to pursue that process came on June 11 (nearly 3 months already). To not even have a lower court decision yet on any of them for a supposed "expedited" process contradicts the assumption that they are actually doing os.

[StarfishSaver]

17. One of them: Case No. 19-cv-01136

Not only did the district court judge fast track his decision upholding the subpoena for Trump's financial records, the appellate court put the appeal on its accelerated calendar.

[hlthe2b]

18. You mean the financial records case that I already acknowledged

had had some lower court expedition.

The issue is Congressional subpoenas against individuals to appear.

[StarfishSaver]

20. Other than the subpoenas that have been fast tracked, no subpoenas have been fast tracked?

If that's your point, I would agree.

[hlthe2b]

22. There is no subtlety: Unless you can prove otherwise, No Congressional Subpeona for a high profile

or substantive current or former member of Trump's administration, who has refused to appear, including, but not limited to McGahn and Barr, have been expedited through the courts for enforcement.

Even the financial records case is hardly on the fast track that a potential impeachment hearing should have afforded--evidence the Nixon tapes case I just documented.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Lol - even more qualifying

Ok. Whatever.

[hlthe2b]

24. It was certainly not. Evidence the subject of the OP & my first response, as well as to you (post 3)

wherein I directly referred and noted the exception of the IRS financial records case.

You are being disingenuous now.

[hlthe2b]

7. That must be why I don't use voice dictation, albeit I can't stand the sound of my own voice...!

At any rate, though I'd agree it is the last option, we are rapidly running out of others. Given the other side has NO hesitation to use every power and device open to them (or else we'd be congratulation SCOTUS Justice Garland some time ago), we are about to lose the power behind Congressional subpoenas entirely.

As they say in medicine with respect to muscular-skeletal integrity, use it or lose it. This is the legal equivalence. The powers of Congress have been seriously eroded under Trump (and in fairness over several administrations). Use the powers of Congress to maintain the powers of Congress or the path to fascism has been near fully enabled.

[hlthe2b]

8. The fact is the courts are not enforcing these orders. They are simply enabling the stall-tactics

of the administration, whether they ultimately enforce the subpoenas or not months or years down the road.

[bluestarone]

9. Years down the road is right!

As soon as a RETHUG wants it enforced. (UNTIL we change it somehow)

[StarfishSaver]

12. The courts are enforcing the subpoena

There's a process that must be followed, including appeals.

[hlthe2b]

13. They have not advanced a single one, though the decision to pursue the courts assuming

expedited accommodation by the courts would be granted (it has not) began early June.

No, they have NOT enforced a single subpoena. Do I think they will? Eventually--months or years from now.

[StarfishSaver]

15. As I said, there is a process.

The courts don't just enforce subpoenas because someone asked them to. They have to follow a process and that's being done. in at least two cases the district court judge has ruled in favor of Congress. Those cases are now on expedited appeal.

What alternative process do you propose the courts follow that's not occurring now?

[hlthe2b]

16. I am fully aware of the process. From Jaworski's subpoeana of Nixon tapes to final Scotus decision

was less than 4 months. THAT is an expedited process.

To suggest otherwise is folly and simply has defeated the powers of Congress to assert oversight. If that is not forming a constitutional crisis I don't know what is.

It is for that reason that inherent contempt powers ought to at least be explored.

[StarfishSaver]

19. The fact that a case is not moving as fast as another case from 40 years ago

doesn't mean the process isn't expedited.

FYI, Jaworski's request for a subpoena operated under different rules and procedures than this case does, so comparing the timing of the two is apples and oranges.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

25. will anyone now living get to see these expedited rulings?

The situation is, as pointed out above, a Constitutional crisis. There is no provision to reign in an Executive branch which refuses to follow the law.

[DeminPennswoods]

27. Correct me if I'm wrong, but iirc, Flynn's plea agreement requires

him to co-operate with all other investigations, state and federal.

[procon]

4. Waterboard him on the well of the Senate in

Joint Session. Every Republican favors torture as do most of their voters so it should be a popular Primetime event.

[Amishman]

21. No real way to do it

All they need to do is repeat 'i can't recall' and 'i don't remember', followed by keeping their mouth shut... And they all know this

[Leith]

26. Anyone remember Susan MacDougall?

Let's treat Flynn the way Starr treated her. It didn't seem to lose them any votes.

[StarfishSaver]

28. That was a different situation

She refused to testify before a federal grand jury and the court found her in civil contempt of court and ordered her jailed after she defied its order its order to testify.

[Leith]

29. Do you know why she refused to answer?

Because 2 other witnesses lied in their testimony and told the GJ what the prosecutors wanted to hear. Susan was afraid that she would be charged with perjury if she told the truth.

But here's the point I was making:
She was also brought from her cell and into the courtroom dressed in the orange jumpsuit and had wrist and ankle chains on. THAT is how those who refuse to testify in front of the House should be treated.

[StarfishSaver]

30. Maybe that's how they should be handled but that's not up to the House

That's totally up to the court.