The Mills of the Gods

Do you think that more than half of the US public may be getting a little irked with “Joe Biden’s” lawfare elf, AG Merrick Garland, as he rolls one innocent J-6 protester after another into decades of hard-time for strolling through the US Capitol building — while the special counsels assigned to only a few of the Biden family crimes play hide-the-salami with due process?

For all their cheap talk about “our democracy,” it’s a little scary to see what Democratic Party lawyers actually think of the legal system that is supposed to allow a society based on liberty to function fairly. Court filings last week indicate that Special Counsel David Weiss is about to indict Hunter Biden on that gun charge they have used as the joker in a three-card Monte game for going on five years.

Last time, they ran the game before Delaware federal judge Maryellen Noreika, she detected a teeny-weeny, sneaky clause in the plea agreement to a watered-down gun charge that would have granted immunity to Hunter B from any other past wrongdoing, including, of course, the entire alleged Biden family racketeering operation that had the First Son acting as prime broker and bag-man for tens of millions of dollars in bribes from foreign actors in countries less than friendly to US interests, funneled into any number of Biden family shell corporations. Judge Noreika nixed the plea agreement.

Now, Mr. Weiss’s crew seems to be saying that the immunity clause is still tied to any plea deal answering a forthcoming September 29 indictment. The move would appear to be timed to exactly the moment that a House impeachment committee would begin its inquiry into the Biden family’s moneygrubbing activities. In ordinary House committee hearings, DOJ officials like to use the excuse of “an ongoing investigation” to demur from answering questions. Merrick Garland has done this dozens of times. Will they now try to upgrade that to “an ongoing prosecution?” Could that move lead to a constitutional impasse, requiring the Supreme Court to rule? Or does a House impeachment panel enjoy special privileges of inquiry?

It also appears that Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FLA) intends to force the issue of opening an impeachment ASAP against “Joe Biden.” In last January’s maneuvering to seat a new Republican House majority, Mr. Gaetz pushed through an agreement that the process to remove and replace the Speaker of the House could be activated by one vote. Mr. Gaetz reiterated last week that he means business. He’s the one vote.

The argument that Republicans should leave hands-off “Joe Biden” so they can run against the feeble old grifter in 2024 is preposterous because there is no way that the “JB” can possibly run for reelection under any circumstances. It’s just another trip being laid on the American public — and one that illustrates how tragic and dangerous is the absence of an honest news media for challenging such insolent gambits....

“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”

Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions.

Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)

If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.

Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.

Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.

Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.

Some references

[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html

[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html

[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit

[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html

[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf

[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/

In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.

In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.