Talk:Contempt of Congress

Untitled

no mention of its use in the red scare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.55.163 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Holder was not "found" in contempt

This article is factually incorrect. Lulaq (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Contempt of Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421135250/http://www.ecommcode2.com/hoover/research/historicalmaterials/other/maccrack.htm to http://www.ecommcode2.com/hoover/research/historicalmaterials/other/maccrack.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Addition of Obstruction of Congress to lead: An explanation

Someone on my user talk page requested a reference and explanation for the addition of "Obstruction of Congress" to this article, I have provided said reference: A report by the Congressional Research Service, dated to 2007, which establishes that the concept of "Contempt of Congress" is equivalent to "Obstruction of Congress". The one is a category of the other, and the two are treated together and often interchangeably. While the formal language of specific acts (such as the recent Trump impeachment articles) choose one term or the other, there does not appear to be a distinct dividing line between the meaning of the two terms. --Jayron32 14:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing entry in table

Shouldn't the December 18, 2019 House of Representatives decision be listed in the table? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Bri, Yes, I agree. I've added him. – Frood (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me that impeachment for Obstruction of Congress is not the same as being held in Contempt of Congress. Impeachment is not the same as finding someone in contempt even if the article for impeachment is, effectively, criminal contempt. Given the process that was used, impeachment instead of a contempt finding, it seems to me that the latest addition doesn't belong on the list until he's convicted in the Senate, or actually found in contempt by some component of Congress. It seems to me that the impeachment for contempt is essentially the same thing as making a motion in committee for finding him in contempt. A person wouldn't be put on the list just due to the motion, they'd only be added if the motion was successful. I could definitely see including discussion of recent events in the article, but including him on the list seems premature. Maybe a section on the Trump impeachment and the differing viewpoints on that? – AaronMP84 (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bri and Frood: Thoughts? AaronMP84 (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Impeachments are separate from contempt of Congress, otherwise we will have to add the 20 impeachments of federal office-holders, which would defeat the purpose of this list. I will remove the entry from the list sometime in the next few days unless there is objection. KinkyLipids (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)