Congressional Investigations Defense &
Contempt of Congress Defense
Former DOJ Prosecutors. Defense for Individuals and Companies Facing Congressional Subpoenas, Transcribed Interviews, Depositions, Hearing Testimony, Contempt Proceedings, and Parallel DOJ, SEC, and CFTC Investigations.
Based in Washington, D.C., Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC defends individuals and companies before House and Senate committees, in contempt of Congress proceedings, and in the DOJ, SEC, CFTC, and inspector general investigations that run alongside them.
The practice rests on more than 25 years of combined service as federal prosecutors at DOJ’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA). As prosecutors, the firm’s attorneys built cases from the documents up and led complex, multi-agency investigations. They now use that experience to build the factual record, navigate complex enforcement inquiries, and defend their clients before Congress and in every forum that follows.
Drew Bradylyons: Former Chief of Financial Crimes and Public Corruption, EDVA
Drew Bradylyons served more than 12 years as a federal prosecutor. As Chief of EDVA’s Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit, he supervised public corruption, procurement fraud, government program fraud, and investment fraud prosecutions, and he ran parallel matters with the SEC and CFTC. He previously supervised the Miami Strike Force as an Assistant Chief in DOJ’s Health Care Fraud Unit.
Scott Armstrong: 16 Federal Jury Trials
Scott Armstrong served as Director of DOJ’s Appalachian Regional Prescription Opioid Strike Force and as an Assistant Chief in the Fraud Section’s Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit. He was lead trial counsel in the first cryptocurrency market manipulation case charged under Title 15 and in a $650 million Ponzi prosecution tried to verdict. A hearing is cross-examination without rules of evidence. Scott prepares witnesses for it the way he prepared trial witnesses: against the documents, and for the follow-up question.
Congressional Investigations of the Trump Administration and Its Associates
A congressional investigation is not a communications problem. It is a criminal exposure problem. Every letter response, document production, transcribed interview, deposition, and hearing answer is a statement to the federal government, and the federal false statement statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(c), reaches investigations conducted under the authority of a congressional committee. No grand jury secrecy rule protects the record a committee builds. Documents, transcripts, and findings can be published, and they can be referred to federal prosecutors.
Subpoena power may change hands in January. The midterm elections are November 3, 2026. If Democrats win the House, today’s ranking members become chairs when the 120th Congress convenes. House Democratic leaders told the Associated Press they are preparing investigations of President Trump, his family, and his administration across several committees, extending to corporate and business entities. The top Oversight Committee Democrat has named five priorities, including Trump family business dealings, the Epstein investigation, ICE operations, HHS, and corporate corruption, and the likely Oversight and Judiciary chairs are already dividing the work. Other ranking members have pointed to the administration’s Venezuela operations, including a private company’s role in developing Venezuelan oil, and to Trump family involvement in minerals deals.
Private parties will carry much of the load. Expecting the administration to resist, Democrats have said they will rely heavily on information requests to the private sector and on whistleblowers inside and outside government. The last Democratic House to investigate a Trump administration subpoenaed the President’s accounting firm and two banks for his financial records, a dispute that reached the Supreme Court in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP. Business partners, contractors, donors, financial institutions, and former officials are likely to receive letters, subpoenas, and interview requests.
Exposure outlasts the Congress that creates it. Executive privilege belongs to the executive branch, not to private witnesses. Contempt, false statement, and obstruction offenses generally carry a five-year limitations period under 18 U.S.C. § 3282, which runs past the end of the current administration. After the January 6 committee’s referrals, DOJ prosecuted former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for contempt of Congress. Both were convicted and served prison sentences, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed Bannon’s conviction in 2024.
If Republicans hold the House, the current majority’s inquiries continue, including its government program fraud investigations and the House Ethics Committee subpoena enforcement that produced two contempt referrals on September 1, 2026, described in H. Rept. 119-694.
Trial-Ready Congressional Investigations Defense
The firm develops the facts before it responds. That is how its attorneys prepared cases for trial at DOJ, and it is how they handle a congressional inquiry.
The committee often knows more than the witness. By the time a letter or subpoena arrives, staff may already hold bank records, exchange data, vendor communications, whistleblower accounts, and other witnesses’ productions. The firm assumes they do. It collects and reviews the client’s own records, builds a chronology, interviews the people who created the key documents, and identifies what third parties are likely to have produced. Every response is written against that record.
Facts first, then exposure. Only a developed record shows which statutes are in play and whether each client is a witness, subject, or target. A letter answered before that work is done becomes a fixed statement the client may later have to defend under § 1001. Negotiated deadlines and rolling productions provide the time to do the work without defaulting on the committee.
A committee transcript can become a grand jury exhibit or impeachment material at trial. The firm prepares every response to hold up in both settings.
Our Approach to Congressional Investigations
A congressional investigation has no judge, no rules of evidence, and no protective order. Disputes go to committee staff, then the chair, then a contempt vote. The firm’s approach starts with the facts.
Building the Record Before the First Response
The firm preserves and collects email, chat, phone, and financial records, reviews them against the committee’s requests, interviews the people who wrote the key documents, and builds a chronology and key-document index. It then maps what banks, vendors, counterparties, and former employees are likely to have produced, because the committee may already have those records.
Criminal Analysis Built on the Facts
With the record developed, the firm identifies the statutes in play, potential parallel investigations, and any divergence between a company’s interests and an individual’s. That analysis drives how a letter is answered, how a production is sequenced, who testifies, and whether the Fifth Amendment is in play.
Scope, Rolling Productions, and Waiver
The firm negotiates custodians, search terms, and deadlines with staff, produces on a rolling basis, and confirms every agreement in writing. Congress does not consider itself bound by the attorney-client privilege, and most courts reject selective waiver, so each privilege decision accounts for DOJ, the SEC, and private plaintiffs.
Testimony Prepared Against the Record
Preparation starts with the witness’s prior statements, including SEC testimony, agent interviews, public remarks, and letters already sent to the committee. The witness then works through the documents the committee holds, including third-party records the witness may never have seen, under the fragmented questioning a hearing produces.
Corporate Executives, Officers, and Directors
A company has no Fifth Amendment privilege and may choose full cooperation. The executive who signed the documents may carry personal exposure that cooperation does not resolve. The firm identifies that divergence early and negotiates any testimony with the individual’s exposure in view.
Companies, Financial Institutions, and Record Custodians
The firm represents companies, funds, banks, exchanges, and nonprofits in preservation, scope negotiation, privilege review, and confidential treatment requests, whether the records concern the client or someone else. It reviews the documents before the committee does.
Former Officials, Advisers, and Political Associates
When a new majority investigates an administration, former officials, advisers, campaign staff, donors, and business associates become witnesses. A request from the White House to withhold testimony does not protect them. Ethics inquiries reach the same circle. Drew Bradylyons supervised the public corruption docket at EDVA, where these allegations often track bribery, honest services fraud, and campaign finance offenses.
Government Contractors and Grant Recipients
Committees build program fraud inquiries from inspector general findings, agency payment data, and suspicious activity reports. DOJ builds criminal and False Claims Act cases from the same sources.
Individuals Facing Parallel Investigations
Clients are often before a committee and a grand jury, SEC or CFTC staff, or an inspector general at the same time. A statement in one forum is available in the others. The firm’s attorneys supervised parallel proceedings at DOJ and coordinate the defense across all of them.
Stages of a Congressional Investigation
The power of inquiry reaches private conduct on any subject Congress can legislate about, as the Constitution Annotated explains. A committee must stay within its jurisdiction and serve a valid legislative purpose.
Letter Requests
A letter requesting documents or a briefing is voluntary. The response is still a statement to Congress under § 1001(c), and an inadequate one invites a subpoena. The CRS Congressional Oversight Manual describes how committees escalate.
Subpoenas and Document Production
House Rule XI authorizes committee subpoenas, and many committees delegate that authority to the chair. A subpoena may go to the person under inquiry or to anyone holding that person’s records. No judge supervises, and confidential treatment is discretionary.
Transcribed Interviews and Depositions
Transcribed interviews are voluntary, staff-led, and usually unsworn, but § 1001 applies. Depositions are compelled and sworn, and 18 U.S.C. § 1621 applies. House deposition rules permit personal counsel and exclude agency counsel.
Public Hearings
Hearings are sworn, public, and led by Members in five-minute rounds. Under House Rule XI, clause 2(k), counsel may advise the witness on constitutional rights but does not object or argue. Testimony the committee determines may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate is taken in executive session.
Fifth Amendment Assertions and Immunity
The privilege against self-incrimination applies before Congress under Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190 (1955). Companies cannot assert it. A committee can override it only through an immunity order under 18 U.S.C. § 6005.
Contempt and Enforcement
Criminal contempt under 2 U.S.C. § 192 requires a chamber vote and certification to the U.S. Attorney. The Senate may also sue under 28 U.S.C. § 1365, and the House may authorize suit by resolution. CRS Report RL34097 describes each mechanism.
Parallel Investigations and Criminal Exposure
Congress cannot bring charges. DOJ, the SEC, and the CFTC can, and they have access to what a committee gathers.
No Grand Jury Secrecy
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) keeps grand jury matters secret. No equivalent rule binds a committee. Committees publish transcripts, quote testimony in reports, send criminal referrals, and share records with DOJ, the SEC, the CFTC, and inspectors general.
Statements to Congress Can Be Charged
False statement, perjury, and obstruction charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512(c), 1001, and 1621 do not require proof of the underlying conduct. The transcript supplies the statement. The documents often supply the rest.
One Record Across Every Forum
A committee need not pause for a criminal case. The same facts may be before a committee, a grand jury, the SEC or CFTC, and civil plaintiffs at once. Sequencing productions, choosing who testifies, and deciding whether to invoke the Fifth Amendment affect every one of those proceedings. The firm manages them as a single record.
Representation Across the White-Collar Enforcement Space
Congressional inquiries rarely arrive alone. They precede or follow grand jury subpoenas, SEC and CFTC investigations, inspector general audits, and civil investigative demands. Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC represents individuals and companies across federal white-collar enforcement, including healthcare fraud, securities and commodities fraud, cryptocurrency fraud and money laundering, procurement fraud, False Claims Act matters, and public corruption. The same attorneys handle the congressional response and the parallel investigation. The firm’s white-collar defense practice covers each of these areas.
Committees That Conduct Investigations
These committees most often investigate private conduct.
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
House Rule X authorizes the Oversight Committee to investigate any matter at any time. Its inquiries reach federal programs, contractors, grant recipients, nonprofits, and private companies whose conduct intersects with federal policy. It relies heavily on transcribed interviews and publishes staff reports built on them.
House and Senate Judiciary Committees
The Judiciary Committees oversee DOJ, the FBI, immigration enforcement, and antitrust. Their inquiries into the handling of specific investigations frequently require testimony from former prosecutors, agents, and the private parties those investigations involved.
House and Senate Ethics Committees and the Office of Congressional Conduct
The Ethics Committees investigate Members and staff, and their subpoenas reach campaign aides, donors, vendors, and local officials. The House Office of Congressional Conduct, formerly the Office of Congressional Ethics, conducts preliminary reviews and refers matters to the House committee.
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
PSI, part of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is the Senate’s principal investigative body. It conducts document-intensive, multi-year inquiries into financial institutions, tax structures, healthcare programs, and corporate conduct.
Financial Services, Banking, Foreign Affairs, and Other Committees
House Financial Services and Senate Banking investigate market failures, lending, digital assets, and investor fraud. Foreign Affairs covers international business dealings and foreign policy operations. Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, and Appropriations oversee the agencies and programs they authorize or fund. Select committees often carry expanded subpoena authority under their authorizing resolutions.
Federal Law Governing Congressional Investigations
These provisions control most disputes.
Contempt: 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 and 194; 28 U.S.C. § 1365
Section 192 makes willful default on a subpoena, or refusal to answer a pertinent question, a misdemeanor punishable by one to twelve months’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $100,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 3571. Under § 194, the presiding officer certifies an adopted contempt resolution to the U.S. Attorney. 28 U.S.C. § 1365 lets the Senate sue a private witness in the District of Columbia. The House has no equivalent statute.
False Statements and Perjury: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(c) and 1621
Section 1001(c)(2) reaches materially false statements in any investigation conducted under committee authority, sworn or not. Section 1621 reaches willfully false sworn testimony on a material matter. Each carries up to five years’ imprisonment.
Obstruction: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512(c), and 1515
Section 1505 prohibits corruptly obstructing a congressional inquiry, and § 1515(b) defines “corruptly” to include withholding or destroying documents and making false or misleading statements. Section 1512(c)(1) reaches destruction of records to impair their use in an official proceeding, which includes a proceeding before Congress.
Congressional Immunity: 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 and 6005
Section 6005 requires a vote of a majority of members present in the full House or Senate, or two-thirds of the full committee, and at least ten days’ notice to the Attorney General, who may seek a twenty-day deferral. The order confers use and derivative-use immunity under § 6002. It does not bar prosecution on independent evidence.
The Fifth Amendment and Corporate Records
An individual may assert the privilege as to testimony and, in some circumstances, the act of producing documents under United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000). Corporations have no privilege, and under Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988), a custodian must produce corporate records even if they incriminate the custodian.
House Rule XI, Clause 2(k)
Clause 2(k) permits counsel to accompany witnesses to advise on constitutional rights and lets the chair punish breaches of decorum or professional ethics by counsel through censure and exclusion. When a member or witness asserts that testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate, the committee votes, and if a majority present determines that it may, the testimony is taken in executive session. Deschler’s Precedents record how committees have applied these rules.
Is a letter from a congressional committee legally binding?
No. A letter requesting documents, information, or a briefing is voluntary. Only a subpoena compels compliance.
Silence has consequences. A chair can follow an unanswered or incomplete letter with a subpoena, and many House committees let the chair issue one without a vote. Letters from minority members cannot be enforced, but the November 3, 2026 midterms may put those members in the chair in January 2027. Any response is also a statement to Congress under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(c)(2), and the committee will compare it against later testimony and third-party records.
What are the first steps after receiving a congressional subpoena?
Preserve every potentially responsive record. Destroying records after a subpoena arrives can be charged as obstruction even if the underlying conduct never is.
18 U.S.C. § 1505 prohibits corruptly obstructing a committee inquiry, and 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) prohibits destroying records to impair their use in a proceeding before Congress. Auto-delete settings, ephemeral messaging, and personal devices used for business need attention immediately. The facts should be developed before any response: the records collected and reviewed, a chronology built, and the likely third-party productions identified. The subpoena’s scope, custodians, search terms, and deadlines are usually negotiable with committee staff. Any objection should be raised with the committee before the return date, because objections not raised there can be forfeited.
What happens if a witness does not comply with a congressional subpoena?
The House or Senate can hold the witness in contempt of Congress, a misdemeanor under 2 U.S.C. § 192 punishable by one to twelve months in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.
The committee reports a contempt resolution, the full chamber adopts it, and the presiding officer certifies it to the U.S. Attorney under 2 U.S.C. § 194. DOJ decides whether to prosecute. The House took those steps on September 1, 2026 against two witnesses who defied House Ethics Committee subpoenas. The Senate can also sue a private witness under 28 U.S.C. § 1365. CRS Report RL34097 explains each route.
Is advice of counsel a defense to contempt of Congress?
No, not in the D.C. Circuit, where most contempt cases are tried. In United States v. Bannon (D.C. Cir. 2024), the court affirmed Steve Bannon’s conviction and held that “willfully” in § 192 means only a deliberate and intentional refusal to comply. Advice of counsel is no defense, under a rule the circuit adopted in Licavoli v. United States (1961). A CRS Legal Sidebar analyzes the decision.
The court also held that Bannon forfeited his objections to the subpoena by not raising them with the committee. A witness who believes a subpoena is invalid, or that a privilege applies, must say so to the committee in time for it to respond.
Can a congressional subpoena be challenged in court?
Rarely before compliance is due. In Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975), the Supreme Court held that the Speech or Debate Clause bars suits to enjoin a subpoena issued within the legitimate legislative sphere.
Objections are usually raised in negotiation with staff or as defenses to a contempt prosecution: lack of jurisdiction or authority, no valid legislative purpose, lack of pertinency, or a constitutional privilege. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957), requires that pertinency be made clear to the witness. Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. 848 (2020), set a separate test for subpoenas seeking a President’s personal records.
Does attorney-client privilege protect documents from Congress?
Not as a matter of right. Congress takes the position that the attorney-client privilege and work product protection do not bind its committees. The chair rules on privilege claims.
Committees often accept privilege logs, redactions, or narrowed requests, but none of that is guaranteed. The CRS Congressional Oversight Manual describes the practice. Production carries a second risk: most federal courts reject selective waiver, so a privileged document produced to a committee may lose protection against DOJ, the SEC, and private plaintiffs.
Does company counsel represent officers and employees in a congressional investigation?
No. Company counsel represents the company. Under Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), the privilege over counsel’s interviews of employees belongs to the company, which can waive it by producing interview memoranda to a committee or prosecutors.
The interests often diverge. A corporation has no Fifth Amendment privilege, and under Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988), its custodian must produce records even if they incriminate the custodian. An executive who signed the documents at issue may face personal exposure the company’s cooperation does not resolve. Many companies advance legal fees to officers and employees under bylaws, indemnification agreements, or state law.
Can former officials or private associates rely on executive privilege before Congress?
Not on their own authority. Executive privilege belongs to the executive branch. A private company or individual cannot assert it.
A former official may be told that the White House intends to assert privilege, but the witness carries the risk if no formal assertion follows or it does not cover the testimony. In United States v. Bannon, the D.C. Circuit noted that the former President’s counsel had not asserted privilege over Bannon’s testimony. Former White House adviser Peter Navarro was also convicted of contempt. Where the President does formally assert privilege, the dispute is between the branches and can take years to resolve. Contempt offenses carry a five-year limitations period under 18 U.S.C. § 3282.
Is a congressional transcribed interview under oath?
Usually not, but false statements in an unsworn interview can still be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(c)(2).
A transcribed interview is voluntary, conducted by staff, and recorded by a court reporter. Majority and minority staff alternate rounds, often for a full day. A deposition is compelled by subpoena and taken under oath, and false testimony is subject to the perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621. Both produce transcripts the committee controls and can publish or share with DOJ.
Can a witness plead the Fifth before Congress?
Yes. The Supreme Court held in 1955, in Quinn v. United States and Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190, that the privilege applies in congressional proceedings and that no particular words are required to invoke it.
The privilege is personal, so companies cannot assert it. A committee may require the witness to appear and assert it question by question, sometimes on camera. Answering some questions on a subject can waive it as to related ones. A committee need not wait for a pending criminal case, so a target or defendant should decide before agreeing to a date. A committee can override the privilege only with an immunity order under 18 U.S.C. § 6005. A CRS Legal Sidebar published August 4, 2026 addresses recent assertions.
Can congressional testimony be used in a federal criminal prosecution?
Yes, unless the testimony was immunized. Sworn and unsworn statements can be offered against the witness, and false statements can be charged on their own.
No rule comparable to the grand jury secrecy rule limits what a committee releases or shares. Committees send referrals and records to DOJ, the SEC, the CFTC, and inspectors general. Immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 bars use of the testimony and its fruits but not prosecution on independent evidence. Under Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), the government must prove that independence. The D.C. Circuit set aside Oliver North’s and John Poindexter’s convictions on that ground. DOJ often opposes congressional immunity, and a witness cannot demand it.
What experience matters in counsel for a congressional investigation?
The decisive issues are criminal-law issues: false statement and obstruction exposure, the Fifth Amendment, immunity, privilege waiver, and parallel proceedings. Counsel should know how prosecutors evaluate a congressional record and be prepared to try the case that may follow.
Drew Bradylyons served more than 12 years as a federal prosecutor, including as Chief of the Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit in the Eastern District of Virginia, where he supervised public corruption, procurement fraud, and investment fraud prosecutions and parallel SEC and CFTC matters. Scott Armstrong has tried 16 federal jury trials and served as Director of DOJ’s Appalachian Regional Prescription Opioid Strike Force and as an Assistant Chief in the Fraud Section.
The firm’s attorneys have more than 25 years of combined DOJ experience and 25 federal jury trials. The firm handles congressional matters as part of its white-collar defense practice.