> that they faced no repercussions for doing so is not an exception, it's the rule
This is playground logic. No enforcement mechanism is perfect. Permitting nullification on the hope of perfect enforcement is a straight line to anarchy.
Congress isn't a court. Its purpose is to legislate [1].
If you lie to a Congress and it impedes the legislative process, you can get boned, provided there is political will to refer you to the DoJ and sufficient evidence for them to pursue and convict you. But it's not analogous to contempt of court. (In particular, there is Constitutional risk around the executive interfering with people talking to Congress. Even at the request of some of its members.)
> This is playground logic. No enforcement mechanism is perfect.
Straw man argument. It doesn't need to be perfect.
There is a fairly wide difference between perfect and "a rule that is really only ever used to punish people when political will allows Congress to do so, and everyone else can just ignore it completely". Either it should be punishable to lie to Congress or it should not. But, if it is punishable, then it shouldn't be acceptable for high level government officials to do it publicly and overtly, then face no repercussions.
> it should be punishable to lie to Congress or it should not
That's a political view. If you feel strongly about it, I guess make it your single issue.
You won't, because nobody would, contempt of Congress is really only something people in Congress care about inasmuch as it thwarts their ability to write legislation. Congressional hearings, while managed in modern politics as public theatre, are technically only for the benefit of the Congress.
Impeachment and Congressional disciplinary procedures are political processes. So contempt of Congress is. It's not statute. It's barely a rule. It's a right the Congress may, at its discretion, exercise. (And even in that it's limited to passing a referral to the Department of Justice for consideration.)
