And the Republican Party Leadership is In On Board with this Authoritarian behavior and lawlessness, otherwise they might have stopped 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.
In vino veritas................
Time to take the lower courts system apart: bench by bench!
Toss soiled judges and AGs on top of the scrap heap: they’re our enemies Release all political prisoners.
Reminder: Louder with Crowder has a podcast (generally over an hour) on weekdays if you desire an off-color and hilarious at times news of the day.
Well then…
If this is the case, then those involved ought to be prosecuted for it.
Am I right or am I right?… right?… right??
Not that they’ll stop. Just an admission that they’ll do whatever they want and dare someone to stop them. NOTHING is off the table to prevent PDJT from taking back the oval office.
Wow.
Interesting
The Democrat Party Organized Crime Syndicate has members who are judges.
Name???
Haul this guy in before Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz and get him publicly on the record.
What is the DOJ guys name???
Rats jumping the ship?
BREAKING: DOJ Chief of Public Affairs Admits Trump Indictments Are a Politically Motivated “Perversion of Justice”; Reveals Lawfare Involved in Making Former President a “Convicted Felon” Backfired on Democrats;
_____________________________________________
Oh, well this changes everything.
/SARC
How come we’re only reading about this from ONE TWEET ? Nobody else is reporting this. And what is the name of this DOJ Public Affairs Official?
Serious question:
Now that this has been uttered by someone supposedly, in-the-know, then what is going to happen? Arrests? Indictments? Prosecutions? Prison time? What?
Hint: Nothing will happen! ;-(
Meaningless.
Bragg is just another useful idiot. Matthew Colangelo was the Biden/Garland hand-picked guy to “assist” Bragg in putting together the case. Judge Engoron is playing his lawfare part as well. They all know there is a 90-day moratorium on Federal interference in elections that doesn’t apply to states. Hence the case was brought outside of Federal auspices.
Lots of cynics on this thread, maybe a few trolls. September 10 debate, this is another thing Trump needs to fit in to very first debate response, to the “prosecutor.” It’s almost too great a gift to be believed.