[bradleyjg]

Each house of Congress has inherent contempt powers and can jail people, in the Capitol if necessary. They haven't exercised that power since 1934, these days they refer contemptors to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia. The older power still remains though and is on very firm Constitutional grounds (though for a cabinet official there are issues of executive privilege).

More generally it's hard to take Congressional complaints of executive overreaching seriously when Congress refuses to utilize any of the many tools at its disposal.

[hga]

Thing is, though, I don't think Clapper would fit into this slot. Unlike other examples, he testified, the only problem is that he lied in it.

Our Founding Fathers were very careful to separate executive and legislative powers, very much different and in reaction to the Westminster parliamentary system they had after all rebelled against. So I don't see the Congress having the power to go beyond jailing someone to force them to testify (their being the nation's Grand Inquisitor is part of our small 'c' constitution if not explicitly in the written one).

If you want to see Clapper clapped in irons, elect a non-Democratic Party President with a spine, and hope he doesn't get a pardon before then.

[bradleyjg]

There have been several cases over the years of punitive contempt (as opposed to contempt to compel testimony) by Congress. In fact, in early US history it was most often used to punish bribery attempts.

[talmand]

Any member of Congress that starts putting Administration personnel in jail will be committing political suicide.

[fixermark]

When you work in a body with a 13% public approval rating, you'd think there would be little effect political suicide could have.

More seriously: I think it'd be a wild-card maneuver, but I honestly don't know that it would be political suicide. Some people are angry at Congress for being ineffective. Some people are angry at the administration for failing to check the powers it has been given along lines of "decency" and restraint. I don't think those people would be sad to see Congress start using its authority as a non-executive branch.

[talmand]

Who cares what the public thinks? They'll worry over how their party and the opposing party will react to it. There's probably a reason it hasn't been done in almost 100 years. It would be political suicide because they would likely be shunned amongst their own peers.

When you're in theater, you don't kick the other actors off the stage. The others might do the same to you.

Never mind the press going crazy over the silly headlines they'll be able to craft regardless of the actual situation.