Posted on 12/03/2021 8:52:49 AM PST by RandFan
Over the past weeks, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol has called the bluff of three recalcitrant, Trump-related witnesses with knowledge of that day’s events. Steve Bannon is being prosecuted. On Nov. 30, Mark Meadows and former Trump acting assistant attorney general Jeffrey Bossert Clark folded, though in different ways.
Congress is playing a strong hand well, but there is a larger point here. The select committee is showing us a vital aspect of how our constitutional system and the rule of law are meant to function.
On Dec. 1, the House select committee voted to hold Clark in contempt for failing to answer substantive questions last month on a frivolous claim of executive privilege. The night before, in an apparent eleventh-hour attempt to cure Clark’s defiance, his lawyer sent a letter informing the committee that his client would reappear and assert his Fifth Amendment rights. The committee held Clark in contempt and quickly scheduled his new appearance for Dec. 5.
These events followed immediately on the heels of former Trump chief of staff Meadows, under a similar threat of contempt, reversing his earlier decision not to appear before the committee. Meadows changed course after Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Justice Department indicted Bannon on Nov. 12, following a House referral for criminal contempt.
As for Clark, he could have invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence last month at his first committee appearance instead of executive privilege, a claim his lawyer’s new letter tacitly admits could not withstand a Justice Department referral for criminal contempt. Clark’s latest legal move could also be game-playing to avoid testifying. Or it could be serious, with his original claim of executive privilege a ruse to test whether he could avoid testifying without “taking the Fifth” and implying his own criminality.
When asserted properly and not as a false cover for silence, the Fifth Amendment is a precious right that compels the government to produce its own evidence of crime, and not require individuals to provide evidence against themselves.
Still, one could excuse the committee for thinking that it might be on the right track in seeking Clark’s testimony about his role working with Trump in the run-up to Jan. 6. Trump himself said in 2017, “If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”
Clark invoking his right to remain silent does not leave the committee without means to move forward with Clark. In consultation with the Justice Department, the committee could conceivably immunize him, thereby compelling his testimony without risk of his words being used against him in a prosecution. There are reasons to consider doing so.
According to an Oct. 7 Senate judiciary committee report and news reports, in December 2020, Clark met with Trump without first telling Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, Clark’s immediate boss. Afterwards, Clark drafted a letter that sought to enlist Rosen to help Trump undermine Joe Biden’s election victory. The letter falsely stated that the Justice Department was investigating substantial claims of voter fraud. It proposed that Georgia and other states convene their legislatures to consider deselecting Electoral College delegates pledged to Biden.
Rosen refused to sign the letter, and Trump was about to replace him with Clark so the scheme could proceed — until the entire Justice Department leadership threatened to resign if he did. Obtaining Clark’s testimony about what happened behind the scenes may well be worth giving up one prosecution to “catch a bigger fish.”
Stepping back from next steps for Clark, let’s take note of something historic that’s happened over the past weeks. The select committee has moved forcefully to gather evidence in pursuit of its investigations, including from defiant witnesses.
Lest we think that unremarkable, it was only a short time ago that William Barr was attorney general. He declined to prosecute Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross after Congress cited him for criminal contempt for not producing subpoenaed documents in its investigation of his attempt to add a citizenship question to the census. The Justice Department declined to prosecute Barr himself when Congress cited him for contempt for failing to produce an unredacted copy of the Mueller Report.
In that environment, officials resisting subpoenas were rampant. Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin refused to give Congress Trump’s tax returns. White House Counsel Don McGahn would not testify about Trump’s alleged obstruction of the Russia investigation, a refusal resolved by negotiation after Biden became president.
Things have changed. With support from DOJ, the select committee has demonstrated that its orders have teeth and can bite. Congress has shown that it will enforce its subpoenas to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. Together, the executive and legislative branches have revived our system of checks and balances.
That is how the Constitution is meant to work.
Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor.
Conservatives need to stop "respecting" the DOJ and start dismantling it !
These nitwits should be grateful they didn’t bring guns this time. Rest assured that next time… we will.
I don't think so.
Congress is going after people who are now private citizens.
That's what the DOJ is for. That isn't a constitutional role of Congress.
Is this a joke? We have United States Citizens locked up as political prisoners. Is that the way our Constitution is supposed to work?
The committee is completely illegal and unconstitutional without a
Ranking Minority member, which makes it impossible to comply with relevant House Rules, including those applicable to subpoenas and depositions.
They are engaged in a treasonous act of war against the American
people and the Nation.
~Easy
The Hill = deep state gaslighting. What they write is what they want you to believe, not what is true.
Congress’s constitutional role is to legislate laws.
Good grief
these ilk feign to not even know their job description.
Apparently they think their job is to feign stuff only.
feign
/fān/
verb
pretend to be affected by (a feeling, state, or injury).
“she feigned nervousness”
Similar:
simulate
fake
sham
affect
give the appearance of
make a show of
make a pretense of
play at
go through the motions of
put on
pretend
put it on
bluff
pose
posture
masquerade
make believe
act
playact
go through the motions
put on a false display
malinger
kid
mess
pretended
simulated
assumed
affected
artificial
insincere
put-on
faked
false
apparent
ostensible
seeming
surface
avowed
professed
pseudo
phoney
fakey
cod
Opposite:
sincere
ARCHAIC
invent (a story or excuse).
ARCHAIC
indulge in pretense.
See?
.
From his fawning, self-congratulatory website: “ Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor and former Chief Assistant City Attorney in San Francisco, currently Of Counsel at the Renne Public Law Group.”
Co-author of:
A Hinge Point for Voting Rights:
If passed, the Freedom to Vote Act will advance election-safety provisions in five major ways.
Norm Ornstein and Dennis Aftergut September 14, 2021
In other words, Dennis Aftergut is(yet another) social-communist democrat lawyer who is ABUSING his insider position as a socialist JustUS member to persecute Americans and American rights.
Bflr
It seems that, for starters, the committee ought to be constitutionally staffed, meaning that the GOP minority leader gets a say in who his party places on the committee. It didn’t happen, which necessarily pollutes everything that follows. Kind of like the dems’ favorite “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
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.