Replies

That statute is contextual to appearance upon subpoena.

The Sergeant-at-Arms can arrest those in areas of Capitol buildings. The FBI or US Marshals may be used nationwide, but they are under DOJ. FBI has been corrupted in the last 10+ years:

Video - 2 minutes
https://newtube.app/user/Hostage/FokM5dV

Although the US Marshals Service is housed as a bureau under the DOJ, they are supposed to have a degree of independence. They might come through on an oder from Congress to arrest someone. That could be interesting.

In general, Biden’s DOJ is not going to cooperate with Speaker McCarthy or they will slow walk any requests until the purpose is lost.

That leaves only the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce Congressional orders inside areas of Capitol buildings.

If lawyers appear on behalf of their clients, they may not violate the rights of their client, for example their Fifth Amendment rights. That is related to what Levin is pointing out.

An attorney stands in place of their client. For all intents and purposes, an attorney is their client. However, they may not allow crimes, if they exist, of their clients to continue while representing them.

The statute on privilege of witnesses applies only to areas which might disgrace or make infamous the witness called to testify, basically defamation is not an excuse.

All an attorney has to do is appear and refuse to answer based on rights under the Constitution, asserting no defamation is at issue. In this context, the statute you quoted is neutered unless it is abused.

In matters of executive privilege, Steve Bannon and Dr. Peter Navarro were arrested wrongly by Biden’s corrupt FBI for failing to testify concerning January 6th. They had nothing to hide, no defamation to be concerned about. They simply called out it was wrong to compel testimony under executive privilege. This again is part of what Levin is pointing out.

Levin is pointing out DOJ is twisting any refusal to testify or produce subpoenaed material into a case of obstruction of justice. The term ‘refusal’ is contextual to rights under the Constitution.

Just as the power of the DOJ to arrest is checked (in legal context) under the Constitution, so is Speaker McCarthy’s power to arrest.

The problem is Biden. His illegal administration is not following the intent of law. Instead, his regime twists meanings of statutes to suit their own purpose. Nor will Biden be removed upon impeachment, as there are not enough votes in the Senate.

Repeating, Levin is pointing out Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is aiming for charging Trump with obstruction of justice, not because it is a valid charge, but because it might take Trump out of the race.

Here’s an absurd neighborhood example:

1. A bad cop wants to arrest a person “Target” for personal or political reasons, but they can’t find a good reason to arrest, so they concoct an absurdity.

2. The Target is walking on a street and steps in a mud puddle. Upon stepping onto a sidewalk, the Target leaves mud from its boots on the sidewalk.

3. The bad cop arrests the Target for defacing public property and intentionally creating a danger to public transportation.

4. The Target is ostracized by friends, neighbors, communities, and is barred from participating in clubs where personal honor is prerequisite.

5. The Target spends a year clearing the absurd charges.

The above is absurd “lawfare.”