11-10-2012, 01:33 PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Member Number: 728
Thanked 6,329 Times in 2,900 Posts
Re: David Petraeus resigns from CIA
Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.
Originally Posted by Bayz101
Compelled by whom? Obama doesn't want him to testify, I can assure you that. Mr. Petraeus resigned and took his pension with him. This whole thing will get swept under the rug, and the truth about it will NEVER be admitted. This is the CIA and the American Government, after all...
Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.
Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate.
Generally, the same Constitutional rights against self-incrimination that apply in a judicial setting apply when one is testifying before Congress
Peter King (the Congressman, not the SI football writer
) certainly thinks Petraeus will still be testifying
King said on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" that Petraeus is "an absolutely essential witness, maybe more than anybody else."
"David Petraeus testifying has nothing to do with whether or not he's still the CIA director, and I don't see how the CIA can say he's not going to testify," King said.
"I think his testimony is certainly valuable, it's certainly necessary," King continued. "He was at the center of this and he has answers that only he has."
If Petraeus does not testify as originally scheduled on Thursday, King said, "It should be very soon after that."
In terms of former federal officials testifying before Congressional committees about alleged coverups, do you think Haldeman and Ehrlichman testified before the Senate Watergate committee just because it was the right thing to do?