Posted on 10/25/2017 7:16:16 AM PDT by mandaladon
They will hand them over after they’ve been wiped with a cloth just like Hellary’s emails.
Thank you LS!,
One more steak dinner :)
This ryan bum is too much. He does nothing good...always bad.
There's no doubt in my mind that Congress is filled with members who would work to undermine any investigation by the U.S. Justice Department.
The Trump dossier was prepared for political operatives who were working for political candidates and (perhaps) sitting members of Congress.
Sessions needs to be watched on this. If he stalls or fails to take action to formally initiate a legal investigation or indictment, we need to send Congress and Trump a firestorm of public objection.
or he will send ? to obtain them!
“the U.S. Justice Department should not share any information that could compromise a criminal prosecution”
Are you saying there is a criminal case?
like the IRS head smashing computers and phones?
or Warrant-less spying on your opposition?
Ha Ha- never happen ! the demons rule the swamp
The Department of Justice needs to immediately give Congress documents related to the funding of a dossier on Donald Trump during the presidential campaign, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan said
THEN SIGN A WARRANT FOR THEIR ARREST!!!
“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. One has to wonder how a previous Congress might have responded to Alberto Gonzales’s endless recitations of “I do not recall.”
Congress can Remove the President
Congress can remove the head of every executive agency Congress can remove ALL of their employees
Congress can Abolish every agency they so choose
Congress can remove EVERY JUDGE IN AMERICA, including every supreme court justice.
Congress can abolish every federal court except the supreme Court
Congress can decide which cases the Judicial Branch can hear and decide
CONGRESS can Imprison ANYONE they want for any reason they so desire for as long as they wish.
Congress can declare WAR
No other governing body has even 10% of the power CONGRESS has!!
CONGRESS IS ALLOWING ALL OF IT!!!
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.
What makes you think Paul Ryan is NOT part of the swamp? LOL.
Agree. Now pushing repeal/replace to next year and the buzz is that 401k cuts are still coming even though the POTUS says no.
Little boy is POS
Trump will #maga
This would be the same LEA that kept the Russian Uranium crimes under wraps and didn’t share their info with congress so they could stop the uranium deal?
I’m tired of all this “we don’t talk about ongoing investigations” bullshit! Their using it as a weapon to hide deals like this one form the American people.
Sessions recused himself from all matters Hillary.
It's Rosenstein, the guy who buried the 2010 Uranium One investigation, who is in charge.
There’s always a cohort of Freepers who see politics and law enforcement as an extension of a WWE wrestling match ... and if it isn’t resolved in 10 minutes, they just lose interest and change the channel.
Who do you think Sessions will indict? He doesn’t even have the courage to fight a false accusation against himself.
The Uranium One case has already been investigated and to investigate the dossier only requires Comey to be placed under oath.
You only hear praise from Sessions regarding the principals involved. Ditto Gowdy.
Yeah my ten minutes of impatience started on January 20th, 1992.
Yours?
“...lordy get so tired of the swamp mess”
Tell Ryan to file a FOIA and get in line behind Judicial Watch for a response in — oh, about 2 years.
And what happened on 1/20/92?
Why? That was actually one of the reasons Jeff Sessions cited in his letter calling for President Trump to fire FBI Director Comey.
Rod Rosenstein the guy in charge investigated (and helped hide) the Uranium One deal seven years ago, not "10 minutes" ago.
I was responding to your reply wherein you made the statement that Freepers loose interest after 10 minutes like were watching WWE.
Clinton was elected which began this weaponization of all things Washington DC for political/financial gain.
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.