Federal Probe Advances Into Trump’s Effort to Reverse 2020 Election While Mar-a-Lago documents case is in spotlight, special counsel Jack Smith is pushing ahead in his other inquiry

Hours before Donald Trump appeared Tuesday at a Miami courthouse and pleaded not guilty to charges related to the handling of sensitive government documents, the chairman of Nevada’s Republican Party walked into the federal trial court in Washington.

Michael McDonald’s presence there alongside Jim DeGraffenreid, the state GOP vice chairman, underscored advances in special counsel Jack Smith’s other federal inquiry: the one into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election.

McDonald and DeGraffenreid were among the latest in a string of witnesses summoned to testify before a grand jury in that investigation, people familiar with the inquiry said, adding that it has been advancing at a steady clip in recent weeks.

It couldn’t be determined what McDonald and DeGraffenreid said before the secret grand jury. The two men cast symbolic ballots falsely stating that Trump won Nevada in 2020 and sent them to Congress. Their presence before the grand jury this week was earlier reported by NBC News.

One focus of Smith’s probe has been on whether anyone in Trump’s orbit committed crimes by sending fake slates of electors to Congress. The grand jury has issued subpoenas to local officials in several battleground states seeking communication between election officials and Trump, his campaign and a broad group of his allies. *** His team has also scrutinized fundraising efforts following the 2020 election, in a portion of the investigation focused on whether Trump and his advisers scammed donors with false claims of widespread voter fraud, the people said.

Smith’s prosecutors in recent months have raced through a roster of interviews with former top aides of Trump, including former Vice President Mike Pence; Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows; and Dan Scavino, a former top communications official, people familiar with the matter said. ***

The only reason this is happening is because Speaker McCarthy refuse to STOP it. And YES he could stop ALL OF IT overnight if he wasn’t a quisling bastard hell bent on watching this Country get Destroyed.

“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.