calfoxwc Posted November 30, 2018 Report Share Posted November 30, 2018 2 hours ago, jbluhm86 said: "Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas...As announced in Wilkinson v. United States, a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation." you are wrong, as usual. Congress has the power to ISSUE SUBPOENA's. But that has to be submitted to the DOJ. It has to meet the criteria, or the DOJ just can ignore them. to whit: https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/344396-how-far-does-congressional-investigative-power-go Historically, Congress’ requests to the Justice Department to initiate contempt proceedings against fellow administration officials haven’t gone well. When the Republican-controlled House voted in 2012 to refer then-Attorney General Holder to DOJ for a criminal contempt prosecution for failure to comply with a subpoena, DOJ never enforced the contempt. In 1982, when the Democratic-controlled House voted to hold EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford (the mother of newly elevated Justice Neil Gorsuch) in contempt for failure to produce documents, again DOJ refused to move forward. ********************************************* Therefore, JBlewitagain - Congress can ISSUE a subpoena, but the DOJ has to approve it to enforce it. And this DOJ, as noted above, simply defended the deep state friends of theirs by doing nothing. So, the Congressional Committee, above, did NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ENFORCE subpoenas. That lies with the DOJ. I'm correct again. You should try learning issues comprensively, like, both sides, before you emotionally knee jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 30, 2018 Report Share Posted November 30, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted November 30, 2018 Report Share Posted November 30, 2018 2 hours ago, calfoxwc said: you are wrong, as usual. Congress has the power to ISSUE SUBPOENA's. But that has to be submitted to the DOJ. It has to meet the criteria, or the DOJ just can ignore them. to whit: https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/344396-how-far-does-congressional-investigative-power-go Historically, Congress’ requests to the Justice Department to initiate contempt proceedings against fellow administration officials haven’t gone well. When the Republican-controlled House voted in 2012 to refer then-Attorney General Holder to DOJ for a criminal contempt prosecution for failure to comply with a subpoena, DOJ never enforced the contempt. In 1982, when the Democratic-controlled House voted to hold EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford (the mother of newly elevated Justice Neil Gorsuch) in contempt for failure to produce documents, again DOJ refused to move forward. ********************************************* Therefore, JBlewitagain - Congress can ISSUE a subpoena, but the DOJ has to approve it to enforce it. And this DOJ, as noted above, simply defended the deep state friends of theirs by doing nothing. So, the Congressional Committee, above, did NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ENFORCE subpoenas. That lies with the DOJ. I'm correct again. You should try learning issues comprensively, like, both sides, before you emotionally knee jerk. "...Begrudging compromise tends to be the norm for congressional oversight conflict resolution, though with exceptions. If negotiations fail, Congress can enforce its investigative authority through its contempt power, which is both statutory and inherent. This power provides for three basic mechanisms to enforce congressional investigatory requests. First, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §§192,194, either house of Congress can vote to refer criminal contempt prosecutions to the Justice Department. Second, Senate rules authorize the body to pursue its own federal civil contempt action. The House can also pass a resolution authorizing like pursuit of civil contempt. Finally, a congressional chamber can assert its inherent authority, in which its Sergeant-at-Arms arrests and brings a recalcitrant witness to the inquiring chamber for questioning. According to a May 12, 2017 Congressional Research Service report, this allows “Congress to rely on its own constitutional authority to detain and imprison a contemnor until the individual complies with congressional demands.” That is literally from the same article. Literally several paragraphs BEFORE your quoted one. Learn to read, you fu.cking dunce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted November 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2018 James Clapper's Perjury and Why DC Made Men Don't Get Charged For Lying to Congress Even in a city with a notoriously fluid notion of truth, Clapper’s false testimony was a standout. Clapper appeared before the Senate to discuss surveillance programs in the midst of a controversy over warrantless surveillance of the American public. He was asked directly, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?” There was no ambiguity or confusion and Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.” That was a lie and Clapper knew it when he said it. Later, Clapper said that his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make. That would still make it a lie of course but Clapper is a made guy. While feigned shock and disgust, most Democratic leaders notably did not call for his prosecution. Soon Clapper was back testifying and former president Obama even put Clapper on a federal panel to review the very programs that he lied about in Congress. Clapper is now regularly appearing on cable shows which, for example, used Clapper’s word as proof that Trump was lying in saying that there was surveillance of Trump Tower carried out by President Barack Obama. CNN and other networks used Clapper’s assurance without ever mentioning that he previously lied about surveillance programs. The expiration of the statute of limitations for Clapper will have the benefit of conclusively establishing that some people in this city are above the law. In a 2007 study, author P.J. Meitl found that “[a]lmost no one is prosecuted for lying to Congress.” Indeed, he found only six people convicted of perjury or related charges in relation to Congress, going back to the 1940s. The problem is not that the perjury statute is never enforced. Rather it is enforced against people without allies in government. Thus, Roger Clemens was prosecuted for untrue statements before Congress. He was not given the option of giving the “least untruthful” answer. Another reason for the lack of prosecutions is that the perjury process is effectively rigged to protect officials accused of perjury or contempt before Congress. When an official like Clapper or Nielsen is accused of lying to Congress, Congress first has to refer a case to federal prosecutors and then the administration makes the decision whether to prosecute its own officials for contempt or perjury. The result has almost uniformly been “declinations” to even submit such cases to a grand jury. Thus, when both Republicans and Democrats accused CIA officials of lying to Congress about the torture program implemented under former president George W. Bush, not a single indictment was issued. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/ Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted November 30, 2018 Report Share Posted November 30, 2018 11 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said: James Clapper's Perjury and Why DC Made Men Don't Get Charged For Lying to Congress Even in a city with a notoriously fluid notion of truth, Clapper’s false testimony was a standout. Clapper appeared before the Senate to discuss surveillance programs in the midst of a controversy over warrantless surveillance of the American public. He was asked directly, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?” There was no ambiguity or confusion and Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.” That was a lie and Clapper knew it when he said it. Later, Clapper said that his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make. That would still make it a lie of course but Clapper is a made guy. While feigned shock and disgust, most Democratic leaders notably did not call for his prosecution. Soon Clapper was back testifying and former president Obama even put Clapper on a federal panel to review the very programs that he lied about in Congress. Clapper is now regularly appearing on cable shows which, for example, used Clapper’s word as proof that Trump was lying in saying that there was surveillance of Trump Tower carried out by President Barack Obama. CNN and other networks used Clapper’s assurance without ever mentioning that he previously lied about surveillance programs. The expiration of the statute of limitations for Clapper will have the benefit of conclusively establishing that some people in this city are above the law. In a 2007 study, author P.J. Meitl found that “[a]lmost no one is prosecuted for lying to Congress.” Indeed, he found only six people convicted of perjury or related charges in relation to Congress, going back to the 1940s. The problem is not that the perjury statute is never enforced. Rather it is enforced against people without allies in government. Thus, Roger Clemens was prosecuted for untrue statements before Congress. He was not given the option of giving the “least untruthful” answer. Another reason for the lack of prosecutions is that the perjury process is effectively rigged to protect officials accused of perjury or contempt before Congress. When an official like Clapper or Nielsen is accused of lying to Congress, Congress first has to refer a case to federal prosecutors and then the administration makes the decision whether to prosecute its own officials for contempt or perjury. The result has almost uniformly been “declinations” to even submit such cases to a grand jury. Thus, when both Republicans and Democrats accused CIA officials of lying to Congress about the torture program implemented under former president George W. Bush, not a single indictment was issued. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/ Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors. 2 U.S. Code § 194 - Certification of failure to testify or produce; grand jury action "Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, records, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question pertinent to the subject under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee or subcommittee of either House of Congress, and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or when Congress is not in session, a statement of fact constituting such failure is reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it shall be the duty of the said President of the Senate or Speaker of the House, as the case may be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action". "Appropriate United States attorney". This is from the actual statue, not a journalist's take on it. Congress first gives subpoenas to the DOJ because they are the easiest option, but they are not the only one. If you guys want to keep nitpicking over tiny, unimportant details, that's fine with me, but we're still burning daylight on the bigger topics at hand.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted November 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2018 17 minutes ago, jbluhm86 said: 2 U.S. Code § 194 - Certification of failure to testify or produce; grand jury action "Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, records, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question pertinent to the subject under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee or subcommittee of either House of Congress, and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or when Congress is not in session, a statement of fact constituting such failure is reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it shall be the duty of the said President of the Senate or Speaker of the House, as the case may be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action". "Appropriate United States attorney". This is from the actual statue, not a journalist's take on it. Congress first gives subpoenas to the DOJ because they are the easiest option, but they are not the only one. If you guys want to keep nitpicking over tiny, unimportant details, that's fine with me, but we're still burning daylight on the bigger topics at hand.... Actually Turley is a law professor and legal expert and not a journalist but my point of the thread all along is it stinks to see some get prosecuted for lying to congress while others get a pass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 30, 2018 Report Share Posted November 30, 2018 2 hours ago, jbluhm86 said: That is literally from the same article. Literally several paragraphs BEFORE your quoted one. Learn to read, you fu.cking dunce. well, jblew asswhole, I didn't deny they had some authority - we were talking about them investigating and enforcing on their own. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/18/what-the-special-counsel-can-and-cant-do-with-his-investigation.html Independent commission: Reports, but no prosecutions Congress has the authority to create an independent commission to conduct an investigation, much as it did after the assassination of President John Kennedy and the 9/11 attacks. That would require a special act of Congress, the appointment of commissioners from both parties and the formation of an independent staff of investigators. The commission could be given subpoena powers, as Congress did for the 9/11 Commission. But the result of such a commission's investigation is only a report; it would not have the power to press charges or seek civil penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 30, 2018 Report Share Posted November 30, 2018 https://www.google.com/search?q=limitations+of+congressional+investigations&client=firefox-b-1&ei=8bwBXNbiLqPRjwT_p4qgBQ&start=10&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiWn8CqmP3eAhWj6IMKHf-TAlQQ8tMDCG0&biw=1024&bih=693 Marquette Law Review Volume 45 Issue 2 Fall 1961 Article 7 Congressional Investigations: First Amendment Limitations on the Power to Punish for Contempt for Refusing to Answer Before a Congressional Committee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted December 1, 2018 Report Share Posted December 1, 2018 The whole key to all of this will be what we see in court next Tuesday when Michael Flynn appears for sentencing. Pay attention to the charges he pleads guilty to brought by the Mueller team. A lot of tie-in with Trump Towers Moscow that he was covering up in his lying. Trump Towers was still in the works as a method of compromising Trump by the Russians. Just pay attention to all that comes out of the court appearance. Trump is about to come apart at the seams because the truth is slowly but surely rising to the surface and it's not gonna be pretty at all for the 🤴. His desire to lift sanctions on Russia are tied to TT Moscow and the bank that was under those sanctions that was going to provide the financing. And when did he first utter his desire to lift sanctions? In Las Vegas when the alleged Russian female agent now in custody awaiting trial for spying just "happened" to set him up for the answer back in 2015 after he became a presidential candidate. Said from the start---------------follow the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 1, 2018 Report Share Posted December 1, 2018 Dream on, Tex. An alleged piece of paper says, allegedly, that Trump corp was agreeing to consider building a Trump Tower in Moscow. However, Trump was not president. It never got built, no plans were made, no money was paid, nothing. zero anything. And, Trump was elected President, so that was null and void. You keep talkin hatred of Trump, but it makes no sense. AGain, it was legit to lambast your commie ObaMao and your higgardly. See my thread on Uranium One update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted December 1, 2018 Report Share Posted December 1, 2018 21 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said: Actually Turley is a law professor and legal expert and not a journalist but my point of the thread all along is it stinks to see some get prosecuted for lying to congress while others get a pass... I guess Turley didn't bother to read the statue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted December 1, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, cccjwh said: I guess Turley didn't bother to read the statue... "Turley was ranked among the nation's top 500 lawyers in 2008.[49] Turley was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country as well as being ranked as one of the top ten military lawyers.[1] In 2008 his blog was ranked as the top law professor blog and legal theory blog by the American Bar Association Journal's survey of the top 100 blogs.[50][51] *** If it comes to what Turley says about constitutional law versus CCC on the BB I'm sticking with Turley... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted December 2, 2018 Report Share Posted December 2, 2018 5 hours ago, cccjwh said: I guess Turley didn't bother to read the statue... Bitch boy is an attorney? You an attorney? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted December 2, 2018 Report Share Posted December 2, 2018 7 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said: "Turley was ranked among the nation's top 500 lawyers in 2008.[49] Turley was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country as well as being ranked as one of the top ten military lawyers.[1] In 2008 his blog was ranked as the top law professor blog and legal theory blog by the American Bar Association Journal's survey of the top 100 blogs.[50][51] *** If it comes to what Turley says about constitutional law versus CCC on the BB I'm sticking with Turley... So your saying ten years ago was a good lawyer? Of course you are sticking with him, he supports your opinion. When do you not stick with a site,person,news source that agree with your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted December 2, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2018 1 hour ago, cccjwh said: So your saying ten years ago was a good lawyer? Of course you are sticking with him, he supports your opinion. When do you not stick with a site,person,news source that agree with your opinion? I'm saying his opinion holds a lot more weight than yours...mucho more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted December 2, 2018 Report Share Posted December 2, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted December 2, 2018 Report Share Posted December 2, 2018 9 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said: I'm saying his opinion holds a lot more weight than yours...mucho more I'm saying his opinion means less than what the law actually says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.