Posted on 11/08/2017 3:17:10 PM PST by mojito
Well it is Trump’s DoJ. Trump allows it to continue so he is either impotent or worse in not taking charge of the situation. No matter how you slice it it is not good.
Holder held in contempt of congress, got to keep his job and retire later, now bitches about stuff.
Fusion GPS could be an arm of an intelligence agency of the federal government. This sounds very strange.
Good info. Sounds like they need to change the Omnibus or whatever the heck is funding DoJ, or even the NDAA for the military, and get their Sergeant of Arms some much needed firepower for enforcement. Unfortunately that could result in a Constitutional Crisis spiraling out of control, but if the EPA and HUD can buy millions of rounds of Ammo, why can’t Congress.
Looks like he’s been cornered by his own DoJ, who is being backed up by some in Congress. Trump needs to get other parts of Congress to get fully behind him, so he can finally wrest control of DoJ with their backing. Unfortunately it’s going to take some time, while the case is made beyond reproach that DoJ is incompetent, or corrupt. The battle lines are Grassley, Nunes, and Gaetz, verses McCain, Graham, and Corker (among others).
Definitely. He also needs to do that to get tax cuts passed. Thus far he appears quite isolated.
A couple samples from the “Hinds Precedents”, I strongly encourage everyone to google it and download it, you will be amazed how Previous Congress’s took their job seriously and did NOT put up with ANY CRAP from Anyone.
§ 1605 POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT. 1057
1605. The arrest by a civil magistrate of an oflacer of the House for
an act performed in the service of the House was deemed a high breach of
privilege.
A spectator in the gallery having created disturbance, the Speaker
ordered his arrest.
On December 22, 1800/ a spectator, one James Lane, in the j^allery api)lau(led
by clapping his hands. The Speaker ‘ at once directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to
attend to the disturbance, and the Sergeant-at-Arms at once went into the gall(!ry
and took the person out, keeping him in confinement about two hours.
The spectator obtained a warrant for the arrest of the Sergeant-at-Arms, who
was apprehended and conducted before a magistrate, by whom, after a time he was
released, James Lane not appearing to prosecute.
On December 30,^ the Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Sergeantat-
Arms on the subject, which was referred to a select committee on privileges.
On January 6, 1801,^ the committee reported a resolution that it was not
expedient for the House to take any further order on the letter from Joseph Wheaton,
Sergeant-at-Arms.
This was agreed to, yeas 58, nays 30.
The report was then presented to the House, as follows:
That the representation made by the Sergeant-at-Arms, contains a correct statement of facts; and
that he, in the opinion of the committee, is to be commended for the promptitude and fidelity with
which ho executed the order of the Speaker, to apprehend the person guilty of indecent and disorderly
conduct in the gallery.
The committee have reason to believe, from the best information they can obtain, that the person
who committed the disorder (and who has since absconded), was, at the time, intoxicated with liquor.
The magistrate, by whose warrant the Sergeant-at-Arms was arrested and held in custody, for
discharging his duty in the premises, has explained his conduct, in a letter accompanying this report.
The suggestion made to him, that any one Member of this House was consulted relative to the prosecution
of the Sergeant-at-Arms, is, by the committee, presumed to be wholly false; as it would imply in such
Member, not only a disregard of all sense of personal propriety, but also an inexcusable contempt for
the honor and dignity of the House.
That, although the arrest and confinement of an officer of the House of Representatives, for any act
by him performed in its service, and in obedience to its orders, must be deemed a high breach of its
privileges; yet as the magistrate, in the present case, seems rather to have been deceived by false
representations, than influenced by improper views, the committee can not consider his conduct as a
subject of animadversion.
They are therefore of opinion, that it is not expedient for the House to take any further order on
the letter of Joseph Wheatcin.
The question being put on agreeing to this report, there were yeas 50, nays 38;
so the report was agreed to.
The debate showed that the power of the Speaker to order the arrest of a person
in the gallery, and of the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the arrest, was questioned.
The Speaker said that he considered himself possessed of the power to arrest and
confine a person for disorderly behavior during the present sitting, subject to the
instructions of the House. He had not claimed the power to confine an individual
beyond that time.
‘ Second session Sixth Congress, Journal, p. 744 (Gales & Seaton ed.); Annals, p. 851.
^Theodore Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
‘Journal, p. 748; Annals, p. 866.
* Journal, p. 752; Annals, p. 880.
1638. For improper conduct in connection with legislation reporters
have been expelled from the House.—On May 17, I860,- Mr. Warren Winslow,
of North Carolina, fi-om the Select Committee on the Subject of Executive Influence
in the House, reported the testimony of F. W. Walker, and a portion of the testimony
of C. Wendell, relating to the acceptance of money by Walker from Wendell.
Walker was a newspaper correspondent and had accepted money from Wendell for
furthering, in the press, the interests of Wendell before Congress. The report was
accompanied by the following resolution:
Resolved, That F. W. Walker be expelled from the reporters’ gallery of the House.
This resolution was agreed to.
1639. On March 3, 187.5,^ the House agreed to the following resolution,
reported from the Comanittee on Ways and Means
:
Resolved, That any reporter or correspondent having a seat in the gallery by permission of the
Speaker who has received any fee, bribe, or reward in connection with any legislation pending in
either House of Congress should be deprived of such privilege; and such conduct as disclosed before
the Committee on Ways and Means is severely censured by the House.
1 640. The Senate committed John Nugent for contempt in publishing’
a treaty pending in executive session.
In the Nugent case, in 1848, the Court held that the Senate and
House were the sole judges of their own contempts.
The Senate has power, when acting in a case within its jurisdiction,
to punish all contempts of its authority.
No court “ may inquire directly into the correctness or propriety “ of
a commitment by either House, or discharge the prisoner on habeas
corpus.
A warrant of commitment “ need not set forth the particxilar facts
which constitute the alleged contempt.”
Form of warrant for commitment of John Nugent.
Each House has a right to hold secret sessions whenever in its judgment
the proceedings should require secrecy.
In 1848 the Senate committed Jolin Nugent, his contempt growing out of the
publication of a treaty pending before the Senate in executive session. The proceedings
in this case were conducted in executive session.
Nugent petitioned for discharge on writ of habeas corpus; and on May 11, 1848,
Judge Cranch, of the circuit court of the District of Columbia, handed downadecision
(Nugent V. Beale, Cranch’s Reports, D. C). The summary sets forth:
‘ In the Twenty-ninth Congress (184C-47) the Senate expelled from its floor and gallery the representatives
of two papers wliich had published articles libelous on the Senate. (Smith’s Digest,
Senate Mis. Doc. No. 278, second session Fifty-third Congress, pp. 4.5-77.)
On January 27, 1848, the Senate passed a resolution readmitting to a seat in the reporters’ gallery
Jesse E. Dow, who was excluded by an order of the Senate of March IG, 1846. (First session Thirtieth
Congress, Globe, p. 262.)
= First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 851, 852; Globe, pp. 2157, 2158.
‘Second session Forty-third Congress, Journal, p. 636.
§ 1640 POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT. 1111
1. Every court, including the Senate and House of Representatives, is the sole judge of its own
contempts; and in case of commitment for contempt, in such case, no other court can have a right
to inquire directly into the correctness or propriety of the commitment, or to discharge the prisoner on
habeas corpus.
2. The warrant of commitment need not set forth the particular facts which constitute the alleged
contempt.
3. The Senate of the United States haa power to punish for contempts of its authority in cases of
which it has jurisdiction, and an inquiry whether any person, and who, had violated the rule of the
Senate which requires that all treaties laid before them should bekeptsecretuntil the Senate should take
off the injunction of secrecy, is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate.
4. The Senate of the United States has a right to hold secret sessions whenever in its judgment the
proceeding shall require secrecy, and may pronounce judgment in secret session for a contempt which
took place in secret session.
The warrant of arrest, as to which a question was raised, appears as follows in
the decision:
United States of America—
To the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate of the United States, Robert Beale:
Wliereas John Nugent, having been summoned, and having appeared at the bar of the Senate, and
having been sworn as a witness, he answered the following interrogatories:
1. Have you any connection with or agency for the proprietor of the newspaper published in the
city of New York, and called the New York Herald? If yea, state what is that connection or agency.
2. Do you know that an instrument purporting to be a copy of the treaty between the United States
of America and the Mexican Republic, with the amendments made by the Senate thereto, and the
proceedings of the Senate thereon, was published in that newspaper? Declare.
3. Do you know by whom the copy of the instrument, with the amendments thereto and proceedings
thereon in the last preceding interrogatory specified, was furnished to the editor or publishers, or
any agent of the editor or publishers of the said newspaper called the New York Herald? If yea, declare
and specify such person or persons.
4. Did you copy the parts purporting to be amendments of the treaty yourself for the purpose of
sending them to the editor of the New York Herald, or for any other purpose? If you answer in the negative,
then say if you know by whom they were copied.
5. Where, at what place or house, and at what time, were the said amendmentsof the treaty copied?
And having refused to answer the following interrogatories:
6. \Vhere, in what place or what house, and at what time, did you first receive a printed copy of
the confidential document containing the treaty, the President’s message, and also the other confidential
documents printed in the Herald?
7. In answer to the third interrogatory, you have stated that you furnished the papers therein
referred to, to the editor of the New York Herald. State from whom you received the said treaty with
Mexico, with the amendments and the said portion of the proceedings of the Senate.
8. In your answer to the fourth interrogatory, you state that the amendments there referred to were
communicated to the Herald in your handwriting. Did you copy the same, and from whom did you
procure the original from which you copied the same?
9. You say in answer to the last question that you decline to answer the same, because you can not
answer it with accuracy. State why you can not answer it with accuracy. Is it because you do not
recollect the facts inquired of?
10. What portion of the facts do you not recollect with accuracy; is it as to the person from whom
you obtained the papers, or either of them referred to?
11. State from whom you received the treaty.
12. State from whom you received the documents.
13. State from whom you received the proceedings of the Senate heretofore inquired of.
14. Was the copy of the treaty you forwarded to the Herald a printed copy?
has, by so refusing, committed a contempt against the Senate; and has, by the Senate, been
ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms, there to remain until the further order of the Senate.
5995—VOL 2—07 71
1112 PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF EEPKESENTATIVES. § 1640
These are, therefore, to authorize and require you, and you are hereby authorized and required to
take into your custody the body of the said John Nugent, and him safely keep until he answers the said
interrogatories, or until the further order of tlie Senate of the United States in this behalf, and for so
doing this shall be your sufficient warrant.
Given under my hand this thirty-first day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and forty-eight.
G. M. Dallas,
Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate.
Attest:
AsBURY Dickens,
Secretary of the Senate of the United States.
The opinion of Judge Cranch, which was supported by numerous citations and
discussions of authorities, especially English, lays down the following principles:
The jurisdiction of the Senate in cases of contempt of its authority depends upon the same grounds
and reasons upon which the acknowledged jurisdiction of other judicial tribunals rests, to wit, the necessity
of such a jurisdiction to enable the Senate to exercise its high constitutional functions—a necessity
at least equal to that which supports the like jurisdiction which has been exercised by all judicial tribunals
and legislative assemblies in this country from its first settlement, and in England from time
immemorial. That the Senate of the United States may punish contempts of its authority seemed to
be admitted by the prisoner’s counsel, provided it be in a case within their cognizance and jurisdiction;
but whether admitted or not, such is the law as laid down by the Supreme Court of the United
States in Anderson v. Dunn, 6 \Vheat., 224, and in Kearney’s Case, 7 Wheat., 41. ******* These cases [cited] and authorities, we think, show conclusively that the Senate of the United
States has power to punish for contempts of its authority in cases of which it has jurisdiction; that every
court, including the Senate and House of Representatives, is the sole judge of its own contempts, and that
in case of the commitment for contempt in such a case no other court can have a right to inquire directly
into the correctness or propriety of the commitment, or to discharge the prisoner on habeas corpus, and
that the warrant of commitment need not set forth the particular facts which constitute the alleged
contempt.
There were many cases cited in the argument to show that when the question of privilege or contempt
came incidentally before the court, the court could and must dicide it; but those cases have no
bearing upon this, which is a case of habeas corpus, where it is admitted on all hands that the question of
contempt is brought directly before the court.
But if, upon this point, it should be thought that the majority of the judges of this court have (as it
is suggested) stated the principle too broadly in respect to the conclusive effect of a judgment of contempt
and if it should be deemed necessary that it should appear in the return of the hapeas corpus that at the
time of the supposed contempt the Senate were acting in a matter of which they had jurisdiction—we all
think it does sufficiently appear in the return that the Senate were, at that time, engaged in a matter
within their jurisdiction, to wit, an inquiry whether any person, and who, had violated the rule of the
Senate which requires that all treaties laid before them should be kept secret until the Senate should take
off the injunction of secrecy. This appears by the interrogatories propounded to the witness (the prisoner),
as stated in the return, and by the recital, in part, of the answers of the witness to a part of those
interrogatories.
But it has been contended also in argument that the power of the Senate to punish for contempts is
confined to their authority over their own members.
It is true that by the Constitution, Article I, section 6, “each House may determine the rules of its
proceeding, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a
member. But it says nothing of contempts. These were left to the operation of the common-law principle
that every court has a right to protect itself from insult and contempt, without which right of selfprotection
they could not discharge their high and important duties. It is not at all probable that the
framers of the Constitution, by giving an express power to the Senate to punish its members for disorderly
behavior, and even to expel a member, intended to deprive the Senate of that protection from insult,
which they knew very well belonged to and was enjoyed by both Houses of Parliament and the legis§
1640 POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT. 1113
laturcs of ( he former colonies and no%v States of tliis Union. The provision of the Constitution may have
been intended to remove a doiilit, whether a memljer of the Senate, appointed by and responsible to a
State legislature, could be guilty of a contempt to a body of which he himself was a member; or it may
have been intended to apply only to such disorderly behavior as did not amount to a contempt of the
House; or to remove a doubt whether the Senate had power to expel a member. 13ut whatever may
have been the intention we think the provision does not justify an inference that their power to punish
for contempts can be executed only upon members of the Senate.
It was also contended in argument that although the Senate might hold secret sessions, they could
not, in secret session, punish a man for contempt. The court, however, can not perceive any reason why
the Senate should not have the same power of punishing contempts in secret as in open session. In the
early years of this Government the sessions of the Senate were always secret.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, section 5, requires that “each House shall keep
a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their
judgment require secrecy.” The journal can not be kept secret unless the proceedings themselves be
kept secret. Hence, each House has a right to hold secret sessions whenever in its judgment the proceedings
shall require secrecy. The necessity of the power to hold secret sessions, especially of the Senate,
is so obvious that no argument in its favor is required by the court.
The Senate, besides being a branch of the Legislature, is the executive council of the President, and
stands in intimate commimion with him in regard to all our foreign diplomatic relations. Nothing, therefore,
can be more proper than that all executive sessions of the Senate, and all confidential communications
relating to treaties should be with closed doors and under seal of secrecy. Hence the standing rule of
the Senate (No. 38) requires that all confidential communications made by the President of the United
States to the Senate shall be, by the members thereof, kept secret; and all treaties which may be laid
before the Senate shall also be kept secret until the Senate shall, by their resolution, take off the injunction
of secrecy. And by the standing rule of the Senate (No. 39), “All information or remarks touching
or concerning the character and qualifications of any person nominated by the President to office shall be
kept secret.” By the fortieth rule of the Senate, “WTien acting on confidential or executive business,
the Senate shall be cleared of all persons, except the Secretary, the principal or executive clerk, the
Sergeant-at-Arnis, and Doorkeeper and Assistant Doorkeeper.” By the forty-first nile of the Senate,
“The legislative proceedings, the executive proceedings, and the confidential legislative proceedings
of the Senate shall be kept in separate and distinct books.”
These rules were established under the power given to the Senate by the Constitution of the United
States, Article I, section 5, “To determine the rules of its proceedings,” and are, therefore, until repealed,
as obligatory as if they had been inserted in the Constitution itself; so that it is not only the privilege, but
the duty of the Senate to hold its executive sessions in secret. No odium, therefore, can attach to the
Senate from the circumstance that the judgment for contempt was pronounced in secret session, upon a
transaction which took place in secret session. It could not have been done otherwise. The offense
must be punished in secret session or go unpunished; leaving the Senate exposed to all sorts of insults in
the discharge of their solemn constitutional duties.
After an anxious and careful consideration of the whole case, the court is unanimously of opinion
that the Senate of the United States has power, when acting in a case within its jurisdiction, to punish
all contempts of its authority, and that the prisoner, having been committed by the Senate for such a
contempt, and being still held and detained for that cause by their officer, this court has, upon the habeas
corpus, no jurisdiction to inquire further into the cause of commitment and must remand the prisoner.’
Prisoner remanded.
‘ In 1871 (First session Forty-second Congress), the Senate arrested Z. L. White and H. J. Ramsdel
for the publication of the treaty of Washington, and prolonged proceedings arose from their contumacy
Unfortunately because most in Congress don’t care about justice and what’s best for the country, they care about what’s best for them, personally. That equates to how much money will they get to spend, and how likely are they to get re-elected, when Trump is more interested in what’s best for the country, whether that means their budget gets cut, or they get replaced by someone more conservative, or not.
I am pretty sick of all these behind the door hearings. Americans are paying for this stuff and they have a right to hear how they are being cheated and robbed.
Nothing classified here, just pure corruption.
I heard Hillary was talking to Steele or GPS to produce ANOTHER dossier on Trump.
Nothing classified here, just pure corruption.
Perfectly stated!
ping!
The Fusion brand is as worthless as the Washington Free Bacon brand.....
Toss both of them in the trash can.
that part never made any sense to me... it's like paying a kid to eat free candy L$M RAT media would do it for free, but for money?
to paraphrase Tony Montana: I kill a communist for fun, but for a green card... I'm gonna carve him up real nice.
i write FAKE NEWS for fun, but for money? i'm gonna write some some real nice sh!t
and why deal when you have them by the gonads??
Doesn’t “ behind closed doors testimony “ mean that the public will never hear the testimony???? I believe it does. Unreal.
Its nice that Ryan’s GOPe gave Fusion GPS a pass. Such a sweet traitorous MF.
“Well it is Trump’s DoJ. Trump allows it to continue so he is either impotent or worse in not taking charge of the situation. No matter how you slice it it is not good.”
You are right. Its not Sessions denying us justice, its Trump. He has the power to appoint a ‘Special Counsel’, he has the power to fire Sessions, and he whines and does nothing.
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.