Posted on 08/13/2023 7:27:23 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Butttt,I have to show my white dem masters how good I am at judging......They loooove when I roll my eyes at people like Trump....
So her intent is to hang him after the fair trial?
Actually, that demographic would be better than we’ll educated, white, liberal, political and government toadies living in NW, DC. Trump has 0.000 % chance of winning with them.
Contact Congress
U.S. House of Representatives:
* Telephone: 202-225-3121
* Website: http://www.house.gov/
U.S. Senate:
* Telephone: 202-224-3121
* Website: http://www.senate.gov/
Message: Republicans control the House
<><>you must issue Chutkan a Subpoena
<><>and have the Capitol Police serve her
<><>bring her in for a House Committee hearing
<><>then just REMAND HER INTO CUSTODY
<><>while searching her entire Background for a Crime
<><>meanwhile moving forward proceedings to impeach her
She lacks judicial temperament
If only there was an adversarial political party that controlled the House of Representatives, They would Issue a Subpoena and have the Capitol Police serve her and bring her in for a Committee hearing by the House Judiciary Committee, then they could just REMAND HER INTO CUSTODY while they search her entire Background for a Crime while impeachment proceedings move forward
“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.
(Part of the Plan)
Yep. All part of rigging the 2024 election by any means possible.
She has a part to play in this charade and she’s going for the Oscar.
You get it. Note a big difference in culture. The swamp, the establishment, thinks that deals impacting the public should not be done in public, but should be done in secret negotiations.
Hunter Biden negotiated outside the public eye.
Joe Biden negotiates outside the public eye.
Reagan negotiated his meeting with Russia in the public eye.
Trump negotiated with N Korea in the public eye.
Trump is an open book on social media. No secrets.
Jared met with Saudis and it was all public. If there were a Hunter type deal in Jared’s meeting the swamp media would be sure to let us know. But Jared did not hide what he was doing. The swamp media has nothing.
The swamp thinks that doing things in public inhibits negotiations. This is true whether the negotiations have high goals and sinful goals.
This observation is not a 100% v 0%. It is 80% v 20%. There are two very different views of the way governmental and public decisions should be made. Most, but not all, are on one side. Most, but not all, are on the other side.
> And unfortunately, our Marquis of Queensberry Republicans want to treat them like they’re sane. <
That’s a key point. In the old days (maybe 75+ years ago) each party would fight tooth and nail for their principles. Now only the Democrats do that.
The GOPe? A few of them might issue a statement of mild disapproval. Then it’s off to the country club for martinis.
Hear hear.
The best solution is to throw him in jail immediately and postpone the trial indefinitely. /s
Have Trump’s lawyers yey made a formal detailed motion that this biased judge recuse herself? Did they make a formal motion to dismiss the charges? Both motions will be declined by her but interloquatory appeals will stall this trial for a very long time and when it the motions reach the Supreme Court, the whole thing may be quashed.
My, how professional.
I recently sat in a board meeting for my electrical utility. During public comments, a lady went straight off the rails talking about a demonic influence of our government and 85,000 missing children from the border…
ZERO to do with the electric utility; but every single one of the board members sat there stony faced and listened, when time was up they thanked her for her comment and moved on. And 1/2 the board are greenies.
Then you have this bitty judge that can’t hide her disdain.
“It’s reminiscent of that great jurist Roland Freisler.”
I think Merrick Garland would look right at home in one of those rook hats those nazi judges wore.
UNPRINTABLE
> I think Merrick Garland would look right at home in one of those rook hats those nazi judges wore. <
Garland would resist that, until he was told that the Nazis were National SOCIALISTS.
Then he’d probably order three of them.
It's hard for me to be sure if this is all meant to deny him the nomination or to guarantee it (both are possibilities IMO).
But it's not difficult to see how it could hurt him with *some* voters...maybe even quite a few...who voted for him in '16 and/or '20 while,OTOH,not motivating anyone to vote for him next year who hasn't been an enthusiastic supporter for some time.
I hope to God I'm wrong but it looks like the Rat Party's "lawfare" strategy...a strategy based on the fact that 95% of the nation's lawyers (and judges) are Rats...just might work...just as their voter fraud operation in a handful of larger,"battleground",states worked in '20.
“That’s a key point. In the old days (maybe 75+ years ago) each party would fight tooth and nail for their principles. Now only the Democrats do that.
The GOPe? A few of them might issue a statement of mild disapproval. Then it’s off to the country club for martinis.”
But will the Republican voters ditch the party in mass for another? Absolutely not, misguided loyalty and laziness to the point of absolute stupidity.
Chutkan is a trained dancer and that’s all you need to be an Obama judge
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.