“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”
Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions.
Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)
If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.
Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.
Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.
Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.
Some references
[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html
[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf
[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/
In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.
In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.
That statute is contextual to appearance upon subpoena.
The Sergeant-at-Arms can arrest those in areas of Capitol buildings. The FBI or US Marshals may be used nationwide, but they are under DOJ. FBI has been corrupted in the last 10+ years:
Video - 2 minutes
https://newtube.app/user/Hostage/FokM5dV
Although the US Marshals Service is housed as a bureau under the DOJ, they are supposed to have a degree of independence. They might come through on an oder from Congress to arrest someone. That could be interesting.
In general, Biden’s DOJ is not going to cooperate with Speaker McCarthy or they will slow walk any requests until the purpose is lost.
That leaves only the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce Congressional orders inside areas of Capitol buildings.
If lawyers appear on behalf of their clients, they may not violate the rights of their client, for example their Fifth Amendment rights. That is related to what Levin is pointing out.
An attorney stands in place of their client. For all intents and purposes, an attorney is their client. However, they may not allow crimes, if they exist, of their clients to continue while representing them.
The statute on privilege of witnesses applies only to areas which might disgrace or make infamous the witness called to testify, basically defamation is not an excuse.
All an attorney has to do is appear and refuse to answer based on rights under the Constitution, asserting no defamation is at issue. In this context, the statute you quoted is neutered unless it is abused.
In matters of executive privilege, Steve Bannon and Dr. Peter Navarro were arrested wrongly by Biden’s corrupt FBI for failing to testify concerning January 6th. They had nothing to hide, no defamation to be concerned about. They simply called out it was wrong to compel testimony under executive privilege. This again is part of what Levin is pointing out.
Levin is pointing out DOJ is twisting any refusal to testify or produce subpoenaed material into a case of obstruction of justice. The term ‘refusal’ is contextual to rights under the Constitution.
Just as the power of the DOJ to arrest is checked (in legal context) under the Constitution, so is Speaker McCarthy’s power to arrest.
The problem is Biden. His illegal administration is not following the intent of law. Instead, his regime twists meanings of statutes to suit their own purpose. Nor will Biden be removed upon impeachment, as there are not enough votes in the Senate.
Repeating, Levin is pointing out Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is aiming for charging Trump with obstruction of justice, not because it is a valid charge, but because it might take Trump out of the race.
Here’s an absurd neighborhood example:
1. A bad cop wants to arrest a person “Target” for personal or political reasons, but they can’t find a good reason to arrest, so they concoct an absurdity.
2. The Target is walking on a street and steps in a mud puddle. Upon stepping onto a sidewalk, the Target leaves mud from its boots on the sidewalk.
3. The bad cop arrests the Target for defacing public property and intentionally creating a danger to public transportation.
4. The Target is ostracized by friends, neighbors, communities, and is barred from participating in clubs where personal honor is prerequisite.
5. The Target spends a year clearing the absurd charges.
The above is absurd “lawfare.”