Posted on 06/12/2024 9:23:28 AM PDT by conservative98
EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., is vowing to force a vote on Attorney General Merrick Garland's arrest if the Department of Justice (DOJ) fails to act on a criminal contempt resolution backed by House GOP leaders.
Luna told Fox News Digital on Tuesday evening that she would plan to force a vote on her "inherent contempt" resolution against Garland after the full House of Representatives weighs the Biden official's fate with a separate measure.
"As of right now, we fully intend to bring it," Luna revealed. "I don't really have much faith in the Department of Justice. And I don't think the American people do either. But we are trying to bring back a level playing field and show that, you know, there should be accountability all the way up to the top."
She added, "If the DOJ won't do their jobs, we're going to do it for them."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Where are the GOP men? It’s no wonder we’re losing the war for the soul of the country.
We need more like her!
It’s a shame she embarrasses the rest of the republitards!
Didn't you get the message? You can get arrested for "toxic masculinity".
Trump/Luna 2024, but I can see the ‘Trump lunatic’ mantra from the ByeDone campaign. Calling an Hispanic female a “lunatic” might not set too well, however.
That is truly an oxymoron.
Alvin Bragg taking notice here.
Vivek for VP is the best move. Trump needs someone who’s battle tested and knows how to handle the media.
Where are the GOP men?
*****************
They’re telling Luna what to do, behind the scenes.
So sad that a woman has more balls than the men!!!!!
This is actually a very, very important message to send to the DOJ. They can’t harbor criminals forever.
We need to contact our Reps and make sure they vote yes on the Inherent Contempt motion.
“Vows”?
I’m really sick of that word. Big Media use it stupidly.
Vivek would be great if we didn’t have the 19th amendment but we do.
You got that right.
Vivek is Indian. Therefore he's "diverse". That may or may not help appeal to female voters.
Trump could pick Tulsi Gabbard and it'll take the mainstream media 24 hours to destroy her. So that won't work.
Cowering.
Women don’t like Vivek. Tulsi would help with women but she has a history of being on the wrong side of many very important issues. She talks good now but can’t be trusted.
Only conservative patriotic women in the GOP truly fight the DNC with few exceptions.
Why do Republican women have more balls than the men?
“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.