The name plate for witness Bryan Pagliano, who did not appear, sits on the witness table on Capitol Hill on Sept. 13, 2016. | AP Photo House panel votes to hold Clinton tech aide Bryan Pagliano in contempt

A House panel voted Thursday to hold Bryan Pagliano, a former technology aide to Hillary Clinton, in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about the private email set-up Clinton used as secretary of state.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 19-15 along party lines, to send a contempt resolution to the full House. The move against Pagliano took place despite repeated warnings from his attorney that the showdown was fruitless since the computer specialist would assert his Fifth Amendment rights in response to any questions that would be put to him.


"Subpoenas are not optional," panel Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said after Pagliano failed to show up at the second committee hearing he was formally called to in the past two weeks. "Mr. Pagliano is a crucial fact witness in this committee's investigation former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's of a private email server to conduct government business."

Democrats called the contempt citation and the demand for Pagliano's public appearance a transparent political ploy aimed at embarrassing Clinton as the presidential election enters its final stretch.

"Republicans want a photo op. They want a ready-made campaign commercial. No matter what anyone says, that is not a legitimate legislative purpose," said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the panel's ranking Democrat.

An attorney for Pagliano, Mark MacDougall, streesed that his client was ready to appear behind closed doors, but would not be part of a public spectacle.

"Bryan already asserted his Fifth Amendment right on the record before this Congress. He was ready to do it again today in Executive Session. But the Republicans voted for contempt because he wouldn’t play the role they had scripted - in the campaign ad that they wanted to tape six weeks before the election. That’s all there is to it," MacDougall said in a statement.

The contempt resolution requires approval by the full House. It's unclear whether a vote on the measure will be scheduled before Congress takes its typical pre-election break.

Congress has three ways to seek enforcement of a subpoena: by filing a civil lawsuit, by asking federal prosecutors to charge someone with criminal contempt, or by having someone jailed at the Capitol. It's unclear whether any of those methods will work here. A judge may not enforce the subpoena because of Pagliano's Fifth Amendment claims, prosecutors rarely pursue such cases, and Congress' own power to take witnesses into custody hasn't been used in about a century.

Republicans said the credibility of the Congress was on the line in the dispute. Some painted the confrontation in grave, nearly apocalyptic, terms.

"We cannot have people come here and deny the right under the Constitution for us to question them. They may not want to answer and they have that right under the Constitution," Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) said. "If you continue that, you destroy the whole basis of our government."

Democrats also described the showdown as ominous, and said the panel itself might be damaged by the move.

"This is a waste of time. It’s destroying this committee. It’s destroying the reputation of this committee," said Del. Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands.

Democrats repeatedly noted that last year Pagliano invoked his 5th Amendment rights in a closed session of the House Benghazi Committee. They noted his attorney offered to have Pagliano appear at a closed session, but Chaffetz declined.

"I don’t think it should be done behind closed doors," Chaffetz said. "I think it’s the way this committee should operate."

However, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) said the law doesn't require witnesses to show up at a public hearing to assert their rights against self-incrimination. He said he wasn't too worried about the contempt resolution because he doubted any court would enforce it.

"I don’t think it’s going anywhere, and I take comfort in that fact," Lynch said.

Chaffetz insisted he has different questions for Pagliano than the ones he refused to answer last year. However, Pagliano's lawyer has said he will refuse to answer any questions from the oversight panel.

Democrats also persisted in arguments that the panel is trying to second-guess the FBI and Justice Department decision not to prosecute Clinton or anyone else.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that claim smacked of hypocrisy, because Democrats have been at the forefront of questioning the FBI's decisions on issuing national security letters to demand information or not to prosecute bank executives over the 2008 economic collapse.

"God forbid we ask the FBI anything," Gowdy said sarcastically.