U.S. Treasury Department obstructing investigation into Biden Inc.

As we’ve discussed here previously, the House Oversight Committee is looking into various communications and financial transactions related to the Biden family’s involvement with overseas entities from China, Ukraine, Russia, and beyond. (Biden Incorporated.) Or at least they’re trying to look into this. One area of inquiry has been a demand for the Treasury Department to turn over any records of dubious financial transactions involving the President, his Brother Jim, and First Son Hunter. These records, submitted by various banks to the Treasury Department when financial transactions look shady, are known as Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and they would probably be a good place to start. But thus far, Janet Yellen’s Treasury Department has failed to produce any records or even a coherent response as to when they might be expected. This has left James Comer flustered and resulted in a letter to the Treasury accusing them of obstruction and “operating in bad faith.” (Daily Wire)

The one response that Comer has received thus far came from Treasury deputy assistant secretary for oversight Isabella More. She told the committee that Treasury still needed to “meet with law enforcement partners” due to the “sensitive nature” of the documents being requested.

Excuse me, but since when does the Treasury need to consult with “law enforcement partners” before supplying documents to the Oversight Committee? And precisely which “partners” in law enforcement is she talking about? That wouldn’t be the FBI, would it?

It’s also worth noting that Suspicious Activity Reports didn’t seem to be very hard to find prior to Joe Biden taking office. Not only were such reports found about Donald Trump, but a Treasury official wound up going to jail for leaking them to reporters. James Comer would presumably be receiving them in a classified setting and not blasting them out to the New York Times just to score points on a political opponent.

Yellen can’t possibly try to pretend that this request is coming at her from out of left field and she needs time to get the documents together. (Isabella More told Comer that the process “takes considerable time to complete.”) Does anyone remember this press release that James Comer put out back in July of last year?

They’ve known this was coming for ages. As long as the Democrats controlled the Gavel in the House, Biden and Yellen knew the request wouldn’t go anywhere. But now there’s a new sheriff in town who wants answers. These SARs should have been released to the committee last year but, failing that, they needed to be ready to hand over as soon as McCarthy was handed the gavel.

The Treasury isn’t even denying that such documents exist. They’re just claiming they are “too sensitive.” This is all malarky. This looks like an obvious case of obstruction for political purposes. Again. And Comer is right to call out the Treasury over it.

“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.