There is a high bar for enforcing contempt of Congress [1]. For good reason. It requires both unlawful behavior to motivate the executive [2], and political animus to motivate the legislature.
Unlike in every one of the cases you mention, there is popular support for skewering Facebook, and, to a lesser degree, Amazon [3][4]. That satisfies the second condition in a way it didn't for your other examples.
From [3]: "Thirteen percent of respondents who were familiar with the brand had unfavorable opinions of Amazon, compared to just 9 percent in 2020."
That does _not_ sound like "popular support for skewering"! That sounds like "Amazon is one of the most popular, well-liked, and trusted organizations in the world".
> That does _not_ sound like "popular support for skewering
Skewering doesn't mean destroying.
Amazon is better liked than Facebook, Twitter or TikTok. The first will be skewered, and the careers of those associated to it will follow a familiar pattern. Twitter and TikTok will probably be fine, though they will suffer some wounds.
Amazon will--in my opinion--also be okay. But they will suffer wounds. The 7% of Americans who think they negatively impact society and 23% neutral are geographically concentrated, and passionate and organized, in a way that gives them political weight. Not enough to decapitate. But enough to enable the Congress to e.g. credibly threaten contempt charges.
I agree that there is a small minority of elites in certain domains which would like to weaken or destroy Amazon (& those other listed companies) for a variety of reasons, and are exerting some effort into making that happen. I simply disagree with the characterization that this constitutes "popular support", especially when contrasted to the amount of popular support that would be mustered for imposing consequences on the individuals listed in the comment you're replying to for lying to Congress.
> simply disagree with the characterization that this constitutes "popular support"
Fair enough, point conceded. I should have said political support. There is a well-organized constituency pushing for this, and no organized opposition apart from Amazon itself. (And characterizing that support as being limited to "a small minority of elites" is wearing three pairs of Silicon Valley filter goggles. Yes, the New York Times editorial board seems to hate Amazon. But it's also built a well of badwill in rural America.)
> It requires both unlawful behavior to motivate the executive [2], and political animus to motivate the legislature.
But... it shouldn't. If you get caught lying to Congress, the hammer should come down on you. Period. If you can't answer the question without lying, then just don't answer the question. This selective enforcement should not be allowed, because all it means is that anyone that can cause problems for the members of Congress can lie without any penalty.
> it shouldn't. If you get caught lying to Congress, the hammer should come down on you
Congress is a political creature. What is and isn't a lie is, within its context, a political question. This is--very partly, it's mostly a matter of convenience [1]--why contempt of Congress isn't a charge a Congress brings, while contempt of court is one the court regularly--unilaterally--brings.
Dragging random people before congress always seems to be a politically motivated media circus of some kind or another. Why should these affairs hold any legal weight whatsoever?
there are senate and house hearings all the time, and they all publish read outs after the fact. That you generally only hear of the politicized ones is not surprising. I have some subcommittee feeds in my news reader in a low priority folder to look at sometimes. Their legislative abilities are nearly nil at this point but they sure know how to hold hearings.
Fauci lied to congress about GoF research funding. Nothing happened.
Dorsey lied to congress about censoring Trump. Nothing happened.
Wilbur Ross lied to congress, and a DOJ watchdog even reported it to congress. Nothing happened.
DNI Clapper lied to congress, and was exposed literally one day later, to national headlines. Nothing happened.
Billy Barr lied to congress. Nothing happened.
Congress has to make a criminal referral for anything to happen when they're lied to.
Congress is not really interested in doing so.
Congress is OK with being lied to.