When Congress Became Illegal - Jan. 6th, 2020

originally posted by: tanstaafl

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'.

What context can there be for legislative oversight without investigative powers? Do you think Congress should legislate on feelz, not on pertinent facts found through investigations?

Im of the opinion that fixing the courts and judicial system would go a very long way to mending our broken nation and its broken politics.

Eventually, more and more people will not only turn apathetic to the rule of law but ignoring them.

Thats when things get ugly and bloody. We are not far off now.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
What context can there be for legislative oversight without investigative powers?

-sigh-

Context means, in this case, that any 'investigatory powers' must be pursuant to a soecifically delegated authority - in this case, legislative oversight.

Do you think Congress should legislate on feelz, not on pertinent facts found through investigations?

No, Congress should legislate pursuant to their delegated powers.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Context means, in this case, that any 'investigatory powers' must be pursuant to a soecifically delegated authority - in this case, legislative oversight.

It's real simple. The J6th hearings are about finding out what happened, how it happened and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.

a reply to: TheRedneck
What about Article I Section 8, Clause 17?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

Seems to be thought of as Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction

Exclusive legislative jurisdiction refers to the jurisdiction exercised by the federal government by displacing state's sovereign authority in that area.

And that does seem to be what that clause is saying.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Context means, in this case, that any 'investigatory powers' must be pursuant to a soecifically delegated authority - in this case, legislative oversight.

It's real simple. The J6th hearings are about finding out what happened, how it happened and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Can't do that if only the prosecuting agency (which isn't in the job description of the Congress itself) is permitted to summon and interview witnesses. This isn't a trial where all parties are granted the same basic courtesies and resources. There won't be any arrests if somehow a "verdict" is reached, just a legislative review of how to properly assign blame and finger wag while documenting the most official and indisputable transcript of who admitted what "crime".

a reply to: TzarChasm

Congress isn't prosecuting anything, there is no "verdict" to be reached. it's investigating the totality of the incident, just like it did with the Watergate break in investigation. where something like 40 people, including 2 Cabinet members were indicted.

When and if the committee thinks it found evidence of criminality, it can refer its committee's findings to the Justice Department as a criminal referral. As a matter of fact, the DOJ has already requested the hearings' transcripts, which the congressional committee has agreed to send over when it's finished its investigation.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TzarChasm

Congress isn't prosecuting anything, there is no "verdict" to be reached. it's investigating the totality of the incident, just like it did with the Watergate break in investigation. where something like 40 people, including 2 Cabinet members were indicted.

When and if the committee thinks it found evidence of criminality, it can refer its committee's findings to the Justice Department as a criminal referral. As a matter of fact, the DOJ has already requested the hearings' transcripts, which the congressional committee has agreed to send over when it's finished its investigation.

I understand that the appearance of an investigation has been assembled. I also understand the totality of information and facts will be avoided, or carefully navigated, to create another illusion: accountability. No crimes will be identified and certainly the guilty won't be punished.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Because the Capital Police are responsible for the Capital building, and that agency's chief answers to the Speaker of the House, so they have jurisdiction. The FBI most likely has jurisdiction as well.

With that said the committee itself, and its actions, are "illegal" in the sense Democrats and the 2 Republicans on the committee violated house rules. Contempt charges, imo, are invalid as well based on the fact the committee is invalid.

A good overview of what Dems are intentionally hiding.
Pelosi Is Blocking Access To House January 6 Records. What Is She Hiding?



The purpose of the committee is NOT to find the truth but instead to ensure Trump can never hold elected office again. Trump became the largest threat to the swamp, imo, so much of a threat that Dems know they are going to lose the midterms yet the only way they stay out of prison is to ensure Trump is defeated by any means necessary.

If the attempts fail to block Trump from ever holding office I seriously think they will try to kill him.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Using a different angle on a popular topic, you presented a fresh, intellectual take that provided a solid point with supporting information and based it on sound research. Meaning, it's definitely going to be overlooked by most and not understood by many.

Thanks for the post! Now to dive further into it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

With that said the committee itself, and its actions, are "illegal" in the sense Democrats and the 2 Republicans on the committee violated house rules.

I don't think that's correct. The House voted on the rules and parameters for the Select Committee.

SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.

(a) Appointment Of Members.—The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.

january6th.house.gov...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Cough cough.. BENGAZI ... Cough Cough...

Like this hasn't happened before. You weren't throwing stones then now were ya.

There is no 'real' commission as those have been used in the past as another person has posted. Let's look at a timeline though.

1/6 - Capitol is breached. Nothing was stopped. Congress acted and new president approved.

1/8 - Impeachment articles for Donald Trump for "incitement of insurrection"

2/13 - Donald Trump acquitted by Senate

THIS IS WHERE IS SHOULD END.

A few days later Pelosi decided to keep it going. Graham also said there was a need for an investigation to make sure it could never happen again.

2/15 - Nancy Pelosi announces a January 6th Commission

5/19 - House passes resolution to be modeled after the 9/11 commission. It would be 5 R's and 5 D's

5/28 - Senate votes on Commission. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ben Sasse (R-NE), the RINO brigade, all voted in favor. It did not pass.

6/8 - Senate releases the results of it's investigation

AGAIN IT SHOULD BE OVER....BUT NOOOOO

7/1/2021 - Nancy Pelosi announces the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. 9 members and 2 R's and we know those RINO's. Cheney and Kinzinger. They hate Trump.

June 2022 - A made for TV special to present findings and they have already had to postpone for not being ready after 2 meetings.

The Select Committee is set to release their findings this September....just in time for midterms. Also, they have stated that they will not subpoena Trump. Why not? Congress also held Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino in criminal contempt for refusing to testify, but the DOJ would not prosecute.

It is all a farce. Remember, the FBI found no evidence and there were no DOJ referrals either.

townhall.com...

Great OP by the way. Perfect.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
It's real simple. The J6th hearings are about finding out what happened, how it happened and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.

No, they aren't, they are a purely partisan effort to try to prove that Trump somehow instigated an 'insurrection' that never happened.

The committee is in blatant violation of their own rules (it MUST be made up of members of both parties and said members must be appointed by said Party's leadership. When Nancy rejected the members that McCarthy had appointed, that completely invalidate it as a legitimate committee.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I realize you have trouble understanding things, but just look at your questions and the answer is right there in plain sight.

Did Congress have the right to investigate the Watergate break in?

Did the Watergate break-in involve a sitting government official?

How about the Iran - Contra Affair?

Did the Iran - Contra affair concern a sitting government official?

Did Congress have the right to investigate the failure of the government response during the Hurricane Katrina debacle?

Did that happen under a sitting government official?

Benghazi?

Did that happen under a sitting government official?

Was Congress going rogue during the Organized Crime Hearings of the 1950s?

Possibly... did Congress have the power to take action against anyone based on those hearings?

How about the hearings on Anti-American Activities spearheaded by Joe McCarthy?

Senator Joseph McCarthy was a sitting government official, in this case a member of the Senate. The Senate is a part of Congress. Are you confused about that?

What about the Klu Klux Clan Hearings of 1871?

I'm not sure... did Congress investigate and hold hearings for the purpose of doing anything within their legal jurisdiction?

What exactly do you think Congress has the power to do to a private US citizen? Do you think Congress is some sort of alternative to the FBI? Can Congress bust down someone's door in the middle of the night and drag them off to prison? Do you even know what Congress' powers are? They're listed in my link, and I even gave you article and section.

Every single question completely ignores everything in my OP. Please, in the future, at least make a half-hearted attempt to contribute something useful. The adults are talking here. The game of "gotcha" is going on in the kiddies' room down the hall.

TheRedneck

a reply to: daskakik

There is a difference between legislative and executive and judicial action. Yes, Congress makes the laws for Washington, DC. That does not mean Congress has the power to imprison someone for violating them. That's executive action.

Legislative - the making of laws.

Executive - the enforcing of laws.

Judicial - the application of laws.

I cannot believe i have to explain those terms...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The scary part to your questions...

What exactly do you think Congress has the power to do to a private US citizen? Do you think Congress is some sort of alternative to the FBI? Can Congress bust down someone's door in the middle of the night and drag them off to prison? Do you even know what Congress' powers are?

is it is currently moving in that direction. Bannon and Navarro were both arrested. Scary times.

Congress does have one other special power. They are the only ones that can determine if someone was a traitor. Those that remember John Brown taking the National Armory in Harper’s Ferry, VA (now WV) was hung for Treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia…not the US.

A committee such as this could investigate as if there is enough for actual Congressional Hearings for charges of Treason, but that wasn’t a spelled out goal of the committee. Nothing that this committee establishes is basis for further action because it was never a clearly defined goal. At best this committee might be able to list Jan6 as an (according to Hoyle) Insurrection in the Archives in the Library of Congress. Until then (if it even can) Jan6 is a riot at most but most likely just a protest.

That said, something is up since today’s activities have been pushed back for reasons…

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Congress isn't prosecuting anything, there is no "verdict" to be reached. it's investigating the totality of the incident, just like it did with the Watergate break in investigation. where something like 40 people, including 2 Cabinet members were indicted.

Former Cabinet members. Former. Not current.

Where does Congress get the authority to formally investigate this incident? It's not implied in the power of impeachment, because no one can be impeached that is not in office (yes, I know they impeached Trump after he left office, which was the ultimate exercise in futility... all the Senate could have done was remove him from an office he didn't hold).

I can refer a case to the DoJ. You can refer a case to the DoJ. Neither of us have subpoena power. What makes Congress different? What power specified in the US Constitution allows Congress to investigate a private citizen using subpoena powers? They cannot impeach someone not in office. They cannot hold a trial for criminal action. They cannot enforce any laws. What can they do, other than scream back and forth about how evil someone is?

And that is not a government function.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Did the Watergate break-in involve a sitting government official?

How would anyone know without an investigation?

Did that happen under a sitting government official?

Didn't the Jan 6th event happen under a sitting government official?

did Congress have the power to take action against anyone based on those hearings?

They had the same authority as the Jan 6th committee does, to refer possible criminal behavior discovered through their investigative powers to the DOJ. They also took the information they gained through their investigative powers to legislation against racketeering and enact the RICO Act.

Senator Joseph McCarthy was a sitting government official, in this case a member of the Senate. The Senate is a part of Congress. Are you confused about that?

It seems that you are. Are you trying to assert that the House Un-American Activities Committee did or did not have legal jurisdiction?

Do you even know what Congress' powers are?

I know their powers encompass the ability to investigate what happened on Jan 6th, why it happened and the power to enact legislate to prevent it from happening again in the future.

Every single question completely ignores everything in my OP.

Everything in your OP ignores precedence.