Locke01 wrote:
Clemency IIRC was something they could recommend but they could only actually 'pardon' them which was a total non-starter. I seem to recall that Truman did in fact "officially" request clemency be considered for Ethel and Eisenhower declined to comment. In any case it was too little to late anyway the decision had been made by the 'public' and 'media' and no one with a career to think about was going to rock the boat.
Phx1138 wrote:
No some refused to appear and 'testify', others did appear and once seated called the Committee itself into question on both legal and moral grounds. All were arrested and charged with "Contempt of Congress" and found guilty, (strangely enough only a little over 20 years later lawyers were able to successfully argue and get the same charges thrown out of court for the likes of Abby Hoffman and crew) and sentenced to a year in prison and a $1,000 dollar fine. The charge, the citation, the arrest and conviction in fact were all later found to be violations of both the power and scope of the Committee AND "technically" a violation of the right of Free Speech, specifically as the Committee had 'demanded' answers and told the men that "taking the fifth" would result in exactly the outcome they received for talking!
http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/hollywood-ten
The Chair could refuse to actually seat a subpoenaed witness but once seated they could not legally prevent them from talking even though they 'could' technically demand the witness refrain from spontaneous outbursts to keep good order. (Again Abby Hoffman comes to mind) The Committee is 'supposed' to assume a witness will be hostile rather than friendly but they'd gotten a bit cocky with initial results so they seated the one of the 10 who showed up and got blasted for it. They started pre-screening witness' after that and tended to only call 'friendly' witness' after the Ten. (Or at least ones they could theoretically 'cow' into submission)
Randy
Well, it's not like just anybody could step up and commute the sentence. In fact, only the president could do that. Both President Truman and President Eisenhower took a pass on clemency in the Rosenberg case, no doubt on the recommendation of their respective Justice Departments.
Clemency IIRC was something they could recommend but they could only actually 'pardon' them which was a total non-starter. I seem to recall that Truman did in fact "officially" request clemency be considered for Ethel and Eisenhower declined to comment. In any case it was too little to late anyway the decision had been made by the 'public' and 'media' and no one with a career to think about was going to rock the boat.
Phx1138 wrote:
Except, as I recall, the Chair could (did!) effectively refuse to allow witnesses (the Ten in particular) to testify at all. So the last two points are, at best, moot in the face of a hostile committee.
No some refused to appear and 'testify', others did appear and once seated called the Committee itself into question on both legal and moral grounds. All were arrested and charged with "Contempt of Congress" and found guilty, (strangely enough only a little over 20 years later lawyers were able to successfully argue and get the same charges thrown out of court for the likes of Abby Hoffman and crew) and sentenced to a year in prison and a $1,000 dollar fine. The charge, the citation, the arrest and conviction in fact were all later found to be violations of both the power and scope of the Committee AND "technically" a violation of the right of Free Speech, specifically as the Committee had 'demanded' answers and told the men that "taking the fifth" would result in exactly the outcome they received for talking!
http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/hollywood-ten
The Chair could refuse to actually seat a subpoenaed witness but once seated they could not legally prevent them from talking even though they 'could' technically demand the witness refrain from spontaneous outbursts to keep good order. (Again Abby Hoffman comes to mind) The Committee is 'supposed' to assume a witness will be hostile rather than friendly but they'd gotten a bit cocky with initial results so they seated the one of the 10 who showed up and got blasted for it. They started pre-screening witness' after that and tended to only call 'friendly' witness' after the Ten. (Or at least ones they could theoretically 'cow' into submission)
Randy