Skip to comments.Comer wins: FBI relents, agrees to deliver subpoenaed memo alleging Biden bribery to Capitol
Posted on 06/02/2023 6:17:24 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
click here to read article
They will deliver a Redacted Document. AKA a BLACK sheet of paper.
FJB and most of all F*CK the FBI!!!
This time FOR SURE! /sarc
I wouldn’t declare victory just yet.
Wrey will likely hand over a blacked out doc.
Which is.. in itself.. odd because it isn’t a classified doc.
Comer shouldn't tolerating any more hijinks, like: "oh, we're walking it over, but for traffic safety reasons the courier won't get it to you until the statute of limitations runs out".
The FBI goes to great lengths to protect Biden from these “uncorroborated” accusations, yet it leaked to friends in the media accusations against Trump that they knew to be false. This just underscores how the FBI works for the Democrat Party.
Said the same jack holes who spread the russian collusion lies far and wide.
It’s a sad day when it’s news that the feds are going to quit protecting criminals.
Monday is a long time away. Something will happen to it.
If true….the FBI has had this information for YEARS ! Ask yourself why no prosecutions…..this traitor sold our country out ! Time is running out to do anything about all this corruption.
On Rob Schmitt last night, Comer said the bribe was not from China, Ukraine or Romania ( those are other bribes!). The country is an adversarial country and “it’s worse than China”.
Who is worse than China??
Iran, Iraq?? He’s never been to N. Korea
Afghanistan? The Taliban?
He and Hunter have done biz in Mexico, but worse than China?
Perhaps the cartels are.
The feds quits protecting their own?
To the extent this is happening, it’s because there’s a faction of Dems that wants this info released (it’s why the NY Times ever admitted Hunter’s laptop was real), and they’re letting it seem like a GOP-led investigation.
I like IF statements.
IF Wray produces a redacted document (or a travel brochure for that matter) THEN the status quo is unchanged...
IF NOT (the actual document is delivered) THEN sand-bag Biden is done.
he bureau also cautioned that FD-1023 forms are “used by FBI agents to record unverified reporting by a confidential human source. Documenting the information does not validate it, establish its credibility, or weigh it against other information verified by the FBI. Apparently they are gospel and used to take to fisa court to spy on presidents though.
Wray = Li’l Himmler. Nothing special about that, though ... the Gov’s full of ‘em.
They should JAIL HIM for contempt of congress anyway.
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.
 Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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.
We don’t need no stinking facts.
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.