Criminal contempt of Congress carries a jail term between one and twelve months, and a fine between $100 and $1000.
Suffice it to say, it isn't very serious.
Holder is still free because it's unclear from a constitutional standpoint where Congress got the authority to hold anyone in contempt, let alone a member of the Executive.
>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.
Holder is free because he's the head of the agency that's supposed to prosecute these kinds of crimes. The only way forward for Congress is to impeach him, and that's not going to happen as long as the Democrats control the Senate.
> Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938
... by Congress, presumably? If so, it seems to me there might be questions about whether Congress can give itself increased authority when it comes to compelling the executive branch.
> who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry"
>... by Congress, presumably? If so, it seems to me there might be questions about whether Congress can give itself increased authority when it comes to compelling the executive branch.
This is settled law. People have gone to jail for contempt of Congress. It's true the branches of government are co-equal, but Congress has a legitimate oversight authority. The problem is Congress doesn't have a way to enforce the law independent of the executive branch, so as I said the way forward is to keep impeaching Attorneys General until they get one who does his job. It's not politically practical without overwhelming public support.
>Hmm. 5th amendment?
Sure, but just like in court the 5th amendment isn't an absolute protection against being force to provide testimony. It only protects you from self-incrimination. If Congress gives you immunity you can be jailed for refusing to testify, just as you can be jailed by a court until you agree to testify under the same circumstances.
Suffice it to say, it isn't very serious.
Holder is still free because it's unclear from a constitutional standpoint where Congress got the authority to hold anyone in contempt, let alone a member of the Executive.