If it's a judicial proceeding under the authority of any US court, it can end up at the Supreme Court of the USA. It's what it is there for.
Congress isn't a court, though. It's part of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.
District Attorneys also aren't part of the judicial branch, they are part of the executive branch, but they are still the ones prosecuting crimes in court.
What happened is that Navarro was told to show up, didn't, and Congress went 'this guy is insulting us by ignoring us', told the executive that he is 'in contempt of Congress' by doing so and asked the executive to prosecute the crime. Which it did. In a judicial proceeding before a federal judge.
Dutch guy is better at American-ing than Canadian Guy.
But "contempt" in this case isn't about insulting. Failing to show up as a witness is a crime.
Historical trivia: One time, a Sheriff and his deputies were tried for
contempt of the US Supreme Court with original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, for enabling a lynch mob while an appeal was being heard.
(09-09-2023, 03:08 AM)Labster Wrote: [ -> ]Dutch guy is better at American-ing than Canadian Guy.
I'll take that as a compliment.
And I keep forgetting that the US Founding Fathers didn't really trust the common people, so things like "Congress isn't allowed to try its own contempt cases" keep coming as a surprise.
Actually, the Founding Fathers would've trusted themselves, being congresscritters all.
I suspect 'Congress is not allowed to try its own contempt cases' has more to do with wanting to maintain the separation of powers as much as possible.