When Congress Became Illegal - Jan. 6th, 2020

Yes, that's right, yet another thread on the January 6th, 2020 hearings. But this one has a twist: I don't care about who said what to who and who testified what and who was lying by saying this or that... there's plenty of those threads already.

I want to address one simple issue that, to be honest, scares the dickens outta me. That issue is jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is defined as the legal authority that a government body is allowed to possess. For instance, Alabama courts have no jurisdiction in Tennessee. If a crime is committed in Tennessee, Alabama courts do not have jurisdiction over it. A deputy in one county cannot go into another county and start writing tickets to speeders... he has no jurisdiction outside of his county. Every court that tries a case has one basic question to answer before anything else gets done: does that court have jurisdiction over that case? If not, the case is referred to whichever court does have jurisdiction.

So my big question is: does Congress have jurisdiction to investigate the January 6th, 2020 protests/riots/demonstrations? Are the subpoenas and indictments for Contempt of Congress legal?

Congressional jurisdiction is located in one place and one place only: the US Constitution. If it isn't there, it does not exist. The US Constitution is pretty specific when it comes to Congressional jurisdiction... Article 1 Section 8 lists 18 specific areas of jurisdiction granted to the US Congress (I'm not going to list them all here; go to the link and read for yourself). The two primary jurisdictions I saw are legislative (forbidden to any other branch of government) and removal of government officials. What I did not see, despite searching for it, is anything to do with enforcement of laws - with one exception: Congress has the jurisdiction to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations" (paragraph 10).

I might should point out that nothing on January 6th, 2020, occurred on the "High Seas."

Now, any authority necessary to carry out granted authority is considered implied by the courts, and I agree with that. Congress does have the power to issue subpoenas for testimony and documents known to exist, as long as these subpoenas are related to the legal exercise of jurisdictional authority. In other words, if Congress wishes to investigate actions of a Supreme Court Justice, Congress may subpoena any papers or recordings normally kept by the Court, and Congress may subpoena any witnesses who might have information on those actions being investigated by Congress. Congress has the legal jurisdiction to impeach and try sitting officials, therefore Congress has the right to investigate those officials and to require any information they reasonably believe is relevant to their investigation.

It's the same legal theory that allows a person to be charged with contempt of court. Anything a person does willingly that interferes with the proper application of justice in the courtroom, from refusing to appear to refusing to provide known-to-exist documents, to disruption of the proceedings, opens a person up to a contempt of court charge. However, there are still safeguards: a person cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves, so "taking the 5th" is a legal defense for contempt of court. Of course, that normally only applies to the defendant, as only the defendant is normally subject to court decisions in the case.

The problem I see is that Congress does not have legal jurisdiction to try criminal cases against citizens. That is the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch. Congress does not have the right to arrest or detain any citizen; that is the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch. Simply put, Congress has no right to even be investigating the events of January 6th, since it has no jurisdiction to act on that investigation.

That would mean that since Congress has no right to investigate, Congress also has no right to subpoena information or witnesses. Yet, we have two people already indicted by the DoJ (who does have jurisdiction to do so) for Contempt of Congress. Therefore the subpoenas are not legal and refusal to comply is not a crime. Now, yes, I know a Grand Jury has already indicted Steve Bannon... but speaking as someone who has served on a Grand Jury, it is indeed quite possible to indict a ham sandwich for being a BLT on rye. All an indictment means is that a Grand Jury composed of average people agreed with what the prosecutor told them. You would be amazed at how persuasive a prosecutor can be when there is no defense offered, and Grand Juries normally do not hear any defense. Their job is to verify that the prosecutor has enough evidence to win in court, and most people will listen to the lawyer on that.

Bannon's court date is scheduled for July 18th. Peter Navarro (the other person charged with Contempt of Congress) does not yet have a court date that I can find. I expect both cases to be thrown out (although considering the corruption in DC right now, it woldn't shock me if they weren't). No crime was committed.

I need to mention that this is not the first time Congress has tried to exercise executive or judicial jurisdiction; the same thing happened during McCarthyism. However I maintain that just because something illegal occurs, it does not follow that said something is now legal. If I rob a bank and the prosecutor in my trial makes a bad motion that lets me go free, that does not make bank robbery legal in the future. it means a mistake was made in my case. I maintain that Congress' use of investigative powers during McCarthyism was such a mistake, and one that needs to be corrected instead of emulated.

One more thing... this televised event has been called a "hearing." A hearing in a legal setting is a portion of a trial that is used to determine an answer to a legal question: is this evidence admissible? Should the plea deal be accepted? what should we decide on a motion? That kind of thing. However, I see no questions being raised on any side issue on these "hearings"... indeed, I see no trial being underway. In a normal hearing, both sides are there to present arguments, but in this "hearing" it seems only one side, the prosecution, is represented. All evidence and testimony presented is that which the prosecution wishes to present. The defense isn't even involved. That's not a "hearing"... it is what most people would refer to as a "kangaroo court."

So what is the purpose of the "hearing"? If it is a fact-finding hearing, why is the defense not involved?

In short, I believe Congress has now officially gone rouge, taking powers and jurisdiction for itself that it does not have a legal right to. If this continues, attending a protest could become a Congressional investigation, landing any of us in prison for Contempt of Congress simply because we chose to exercise our Constitutional rights in a manner that Congress did not like.

Is that worth it? If not, maybe We the People should shut this down instead of treating it like a prime-time soap opera.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Good OP.

Although, I wonder if anyone is in their swim lane at the moment.

Cheers

The Democrats will rue the day. Eventually the tide will turn, probably in November. Every president they set will come back to haunt them. History will not look kindly on their kangaroo court.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Great OP. I wish I thought law mattered. Selective application has always been a problem but we're at an all-time low for equitable enforcement of white collar crime for my lifetime. Criminal law seems to be in a complete breakdown in the urban centers particularly, rampant crime and arguably complicit prosecutors.

It sickens me that people are cheering this on and deriving pleasure from it.

It seems people have no sense of consequences. It keeps happening over and over. You like this now... you will not like it in a year or two or five. The things you cheer will also be cheered for on you.

We desperately need some adults.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree with you on this one. Allowing Congress to investigate their political opponents for anything has accomplished nothing more than a bunch of dog and pony shows.

In my opinion, let Congress conduct their investigations in private, but they are not allowed to FORCE ANYONE to testify or provide documents. If or when they are capable of coming up with enough HARD evidence to warrant the force of any additional evidence, they should be forced to turn it all over to the DOJ to complete the investigation. The DOJ won't touch it because the FBI already said there was nothing there and they already know they don't have enough to prove squat, so they just let Congress continue making their threats and their dog and pony show.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV, but that sounds like the solid basis for putting an end to this BS. It's fundamental and basic, it's such a raw fact concerning the separation of the three branches of government, it has to stand.

I guess this is the kind of thing they will try to do when the FBI couldn't verify Jan 6th as an insurection or find anything to pin on Donald Trump.

S&F

a reply to: TheRedneck

When Congress Became Illegal

actually i think that they became illegal from the day they started attacking trump and impeaching him. that would be sometime in early 2017, they new as well as everybody else that it was all lies and continued anyway.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You make very good points RN.

A few things though,

I'm not interested in what those dirt bags on the committee have to say, so I haven't watched any of it. However, I've seen it brought up that no one has been sworn under oath during this "hearing". I'm not sure if that's accurate, but it would be telling if true.

Hindsight being 20/20, it looks like Mccarthy was right and should have been allowed to go further than he did. Our government is now irredeemably infested with commies and Marxists.

The whole thing needs to be disbanded and started over.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Did Congress have the right to investigate the Watergate break in? How about the Iran - Contra Affair? Did Congress have the right to investigate the failure of the government response during the Hurricane Katrina debacle? Benghazi?

Was Congress going rogue during the Organized Crime Hearings of the 1950s? How about the hearings on Anti-American Activities spearheaded by Joe McCarthy? What about the Klu Klux Clan Hearings of 1871?

a reply to: TheRedneck

In short, I believe Congress has now officially gone rouge, taking powers and jurisdiction for itself that it does not have a legal right to. If this continues, attending a protest could become a Congressional investigation, landing any of us in prison for Contempt of Congress simply because we chose to exercise our Constitutional rights in a manner that Congress did not like.

Is that worth it? If not, maybe We the People should shut this down instead of treating it like a prime-time soap opera.

All points considered, your evaluation is sensible. With that said... I hate to drag my feet on these matters but nobody wants to hear a diagnosis before the medicine has been invented and delivered. No strategy, no volunteers, no operation. Unless you intend to copy the Canadians with some manner of patriot convoy that sort of knows what they're mad about and sort of knows how to leverage the administration. For all the good it did them. Call me a pessimist but charging in half assed like those protestors did on Jan 6 was exactly the problem and what you are describing sounds a bit like a powder keg rolling down a hill to the firework factory.

Remember, remember...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Funny you Brought up 1871 - Origins

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

Did Congress have the right to investigate the Watergate break in? How about the Iran - Contra Affair? Did Congress have the right to investigate the failure of the government response during the Hurricane Katrina debacle? Benghazi?

Was Congress going rogue during the Organized Crime Hearings of the 1950s? How about the hearings on Anti-American Activities spearheaded by Joe McCarthy? What about the Klu Klux Clan Hearings of 1871?

Apparently you've never heard the term 'legislative oversight'...

ETA: oh, and great OP RN... s&f

a reply to: tanstaafl

Legislative oversight aka "Hey, what's that over there?! Everyone look at it!"

*smears whiteout over text and scribbles new legislation while everyone is distracted*

"Huh, guess it was nothing. Now sign here please."

a reply to: tanstaafl

Apparently you've never heard the term 'legislative oversight'...

Apparently you've never heard the term 'investigative powers'...

a reply to: TheRedneck

January 2020 is when Pelosi used the Trump Impeachment articles (1st time) to keep the country distracted, while Covid-19 got a foothold. Covid-19 would later be used as a tool for the Election Fraud Organization to succeed. (Generated chaos)

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Apparently you've never heard the term 'legislative oversight'...

Apparently you've never heard the term 'investigative powers'...

Can you name anything illegal, that Trump has done, or committed?

The most vetted President in U.S. history.

One. Just one crime?

a reply to: SourGrapes

Can you name anything illegal, that Trump has done, or committed?

Yes. Why do you ask?
What does your question have to do with congressional jurisdiction?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
Apparently you've never heard the term 'investigative powers'...

Apparently you've never heard the term 'context'.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: tanstaafl

Legislative oversight aka "Hey, what's that over there?! Everyone look at it!"

Yup, never heard the term...

originally posted by: MetalThunder
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Funny you Brought up 1871 - Origins

And a few short years later, The East India Company dissolves.

Note their flag and the real first U.S. Flag (U.S. Grand Union Flag).

Best gift for The East India Company was the United States !!