Pam Bondi and Contempt of (for) Congress
- James Matthew Sawatzki
- Feb 20
- 4 min read
Lesson Set:
On the White Board reads this question: “Is there a difference between ‘Contempt of’ and ‘Contempt for Congress?’” If so, please elaborate on how to delineate the difference. Three paragraphs required. 15 minutes to complete. Then discuss among yourselves.
According to Wikipedia the Criminal Statue of ‘Contempt of Congress’ is as follows:
“In the late 1790s, declaring contempt of Congress was considered an "implied power" of the legislature, in a similar manner as the British Parliament could make findings of contempt of Parliament—early Congresses issued contempt citations against numerous individuals for a variety of actions. Some instances of contempt of Congress included citations against:
Robert Randal, for an attempt to bribe Representative William Smith of South Carolina in 1795.[3]
William Duane, a newspaper editor who refused to answer Senate questions in 1800.[4]
Nathaniel Rounsavell, another newspaper editor, for releasing sensitive information to the press in 1812.[5]
In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[6] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress's power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, (emphasis mine, AKA Attorney General Pam Bondi) may mediate against it
[6] The historical interpretation that bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law that made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States.[7]
In the Air Mail Scandal of 1934, William MacCracken, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was sentenced to ten days of detention for destroying evidence under subpoena. MacCracken appealed his sentence to the Supreme Court in Jurney v. MacCracken. After losing his case, he surrendered to Chesley Jurney, Senate sergeant at arms, who detained him in a room at the Willard Hotel. (The term ‘Lobbyist’ is because of the Willard Hotel. During the Grant administration, representatives of various industries would hang in the hotel lobby all day to try to“Button Hole” important members of Congress and the administration to promote their employer’s interest.) It’s a nice, if somewhat dated hotel, but close to both the White House and Congress. It still has a fine bar and good food. I’ve never stayed the night. To ‘Button Hole’ is to pull aside for a private conversation. Secretary MacCracken had luxury punishment.
While it has been said that "Congress is handcuffed in getting obstinate witnesses to comply",[8] cases have been referred to the United States Department of Justice.[9] The Office of Legal Counsel has asserted that the President of the United States is protected from contempt by executive privilege.[10][11]
In March 2024, it was reported that Peter Navarro would be the first former White House official to be imprisoned for a contempt of Congress criminal conviction.[12] Steve Bannon would then follow in July 2024.[13] Both Navarro and Bannon's contempt of Congress convictions and prison sentences were connected with their refusals to comply with subpoenas which required them testify before the now-defunct House Select Committee that investigated January 6, 2021.[13]”
Thank you Wikipedia.
Attorney General Bondi may claim ‘Executive Privilege,’ which is easily done by simply saying so in testimony.
However, the sheer hostility with which she confronted both houses of Congress, is so transparent as to suggest she is intentionally hiding not only documents, but also names of participants in the sex ring, and information which may be damaging to the President of the United States (Trump), major Republican donors or influencers and perhaps foreign nationals, including the former ‘Prince Andrew.’ Of the United Kingdom.
Such behavior landed multiple authors and Hollywood professionals in prison during Senator McCarthy’ Second Red Scare – during the Cold War. Among those convicted for ‘Contempt of Congress’ include:
Dalton Trumbo: Author of Johnny Got His Gun
Lester Cole: Screenwriter of Born Free and Operation Eichmann
John Howard Lawson: Author of About the Spanish Civil War and Cry, the Beloved Country (About Apartheid in South Africa.)
Arthur Miller – mandatory reading in most US public schools – The Crucible, a meditation on the Senator McCarthy hearings in the form of a play about the Salem Witch Trials, an historical fact. Miller was convicted of contempt of Congress, but that was overruled in court in 1958. It may have helped that he was married to Marilyn Monroe at the time.
I remember a time when the Republican Party and ‘Right Wing’ neo-mercenaries were protesting Liberal ‘Thought Police’ objecting to ‘Hate Crime’ legislation and ‘The Liberal Elite Media.’ Now Bondi does the same in testimony to Congress. Refusing to answer questions, accusing a completely Republican controlled Congress of bias and interference – as though Democrats had any power whatsoever. Her two performances conflate ‘contempt of’ and ‘contempt for’ Congress.
In The Front written and directed by Woody Allen, Woody’s character represented several “Blacklisted” Hollywood authors so they could continue to make a living. When Allen’s character himself was called before the committee, he used a less confrontational approach to avoid questions. He, essentially, started questioning the definition(s) of words themselves. (Prelude to President Clinton’s, “That depends on the meaning of the word ‘is.’”
The full movie is available for free on YouTube:
In the last few days – Trump attempts to criminalize First Amendment ‘free speech rights’ as ‘Impeding Law Informant’ and ‘Obstructing Police Procedures.’ I’m remember when Republicans said there was ‘no right to privacy in public,’ yet ICE agents get to wear masks, have no badge numbers and do not have to wear body cameras? How far have we progressed since the police brutality outside the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago? Or, for that matter, the trial of the Chicago Seven?
Is it simply coincidence that the police and ‘The Man’ are always on the side of the current administration, and the ‘financial powers that be’ which support whatever lawless and or immoral policies are the initiative and policies of the day?
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Brother James
Comments