When Congress Became Illegal - Jan. 6th, 2020

a reply to: Xtrozero

I cannot remember any of the many investigations into Trump's actions being directed toward a crime. All of them were directed at a man.

Never have I before heard of investigating someone. An investigation is supposed to be into a crime, not a person. The Watergate investigation, for instance, was an investigation into who was involved and/or complicit with the break-in and illegal surveillance. The investigation uncovered that both President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew were involved, and both faced impeachment as a result. Not with Trump... every single investigation was into Trump, to find out if he had committed a crime... any crime.

The fact that he is still a free man is testament to the (surprising to me) fact that President Donald John Trump has to be the most innocent man to walk the planet since Jesus!

Congress' obsession seems to be along the same line as someone who simply gets angry and wants the target of their anger thrown in jail. They don't care what for; as long as he goes to jail. In other words, Congress is acting like a big assembly of Karens.

TheRedneck

a reply to: daskakik

But no state legislature enforces laws either. Congress can create enforcement agencies, but these agencies are not and cannot be legislative, just as Congress' role cannot be executive.

No single organization can make a law and then enforce it. None. That is what Separation of Powers means, and that principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court since the first day a Justice took his seat on the bench. There is probably no precedent more secure and established.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The power to investigate charges is inherent in the power to press charges. Those are your conclusions, not mine.

No. A congressional investigation is not created to find evidence in order to press charges. It's about finding out what happened, how and it happened and how to make sure it doesn't happen again. The DOJ may press charges based on evidence the investigative committee finds.

The congressional investigation into the failed government response during Katrina wasn't about pressing charges or impeaching Pres. Bush. It was about finding out what went wrong, why it went wrong and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Again, please show me where you get that.

Precedence. The congressional resolution. january6th.house.gov...
The fact that the DOJ has levied Contempt of Congress charges for some that have defied their congressional subpoenas.

Once again, you present the argument that Congress has no powers of investigation.

Once again you display your own confusion by conflating a congressional investigation with a Grand Jury or a court trial.

In a congressional investigation there are no defendants and no prosecutors. There are witnesses' testimonies, subpoenaed documents, and whatever else kind of evidence is out there, emails, Tik Toc videos, etc. There is no Due Process because there is no threat of prosecution or punishment. Due Process is accessed when and if the DOJ presses charges based on the committee's finding.

a reply to: TheRedneck
If you read the first 3 articles of the constitution you will see that "all Cases" is mentioned in article 1 and 3, Legislative and Judicial respectively, but no mention of any jurisdiction over the District, mentioned in article 1, is made in regards to the Executive.

Seems to me it has always been understood that Congress runs that District with no separation of powers provided by the constitution for that District.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well said The Redneck. Great OP.

The People that work at the White House...I leave them in the hands of God...however a few years ago I was sexually propositioned by some people in high places that should not have approached me at all.

I am poor live on my own, am a Lady...and they keep on in their own deceptive ways keep threatening me. I have never said who they are and I never will.

Jan. 6 2021 never should have happened it was wrong plain and simple.,

I refused to have sex with political people...because I felt it was wrong...and for the last few years I have lived in fear of my life.

I am 73 now and instead of enjoying my senior years I live in constant fear. I never wanted any of that to happen in my life.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

A congressional investigation is not created to find evidence in order to press charges.

Then said hearing is not within Congress' jurisdiction. That is an executive function.

The congressional resolution.

Wait, wait, wait... let me understand you. You are saying Congress has jurisdiction because Congress says they do?

So according to that I suppose Congress could pass a resolution to decide a Supreme Court case themselves. Or they could decide to take full control of the FBI. Or maybe Congress could pass a resolution that allowed them to assassinate certain public figures?

No organization can ever decide its own jurisdiction. That resolution isn't worth the pixels it took to display the page. The US Constitution determines Congressional jurisdiction. What is your source where the constitutionality of the hearings are concerned?

The fact that the DOJ has levied Contempt of Congress charges for some that have defied their congressional subpoenas.

Of course they have! Where Congress has legitimate oversight, which is any instance in which Congress is charged with potentially taking action, the right to investigate is inherent. If the right to investigate is inherent in a legitimate oversight function, Congress has the ability to subpoena and press the DoJ to prosecute Contempt of Congress charges.

Congress does not have legitimate oversight over private citizens.

In a congressional investigation there are no defendants and no prosecutors.

What, are you writing a fairy tale book now? Have you watched one minute of any of the hearings? There is nothing going on but calls for prosecution! Everyone speaking in that hearing is speaking for one outcome: to charge anyone anywhere around or in any way connected with January 6th with whatever they can get to stick.

What color is the sky where you live?

TheRedneck

a reply to: daskakik

If you read the first 3 articles of the constitution you will see that "all Cases" is mentioned in article 1 and 3, Legislative and Judicial respectively, but no mention of any jurisdiction over the District, mentioned in article 1, is made in regards to the Executive.

That's because Article 1 is concerned with legislative powers, not executive powers. Article 2, Section 1 says different:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Not "some executive power," not "most executive power".... "The executive power." The President is in charge of all executive functions for the Federal government, bar none. The fact that a similar clause to the legislative one does not exist means there can be a separate District of Columbia police force. There cannot be a District of Columbia legislature.

Seems to me it has always been understood that Congress runs that District with no separation of powers provided by the constitution for that District.

The Supreme Court would disagree with you. Congress has no executive power.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
The constitution doesn't grant the federal executive branch power in that district. It grants the Legislative and Judicial branches power in "all Cases" in that district but doesn't say anything about the executive.

All I'm saying is that this is the interpretation I found and it seems to be the one they are going with until the SCOTUS says otherwise.

The US Congress exercises control over Washington DC and not the President.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which states that Congress shall have the power:

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

In 1973 Congress granted Washington DC a limited home rule charter - the ability to run some of their daily affairs. Congress oversees the district. The only power the President has is over the DC National Guard and in some circumstances can take control over the DC Police department and appoints judges.

The only Supreme Court cases I found dealing with DC was the ruling striking down DC's gun laws in addition Scotus shooting down the push for DC statehood via rejecting an appeal by DC residents over no voting representation in Congress. They affirmed a lower court ruling, bluntly stating that residents of DC -

ruling was based on a Supreme Court decision from more than two decades ago that found that Washingtonians do not have a constitutional right to a vote in Congress.

DC can never become a state per the Constitution.

The District of Columbia Home Rule Act is a United States federal law passed on December 24, 1973 which devolved certain congressional powers of the District of Columbia to local government, furthering District of Columbia home rule. In particular, it includes the District Charter (also called the Home Rule Charter), which provides for an elected mayor and the Council of the District of Columbia. The council is composed of a chairman elected at large and twelve members, four of whom are elected at large, and one from each of the District's eight wards. Council members are elected to four-year terms.

Under the "Home Rule" government, Congress reviews all legislation passed by the council before it can become law and retains authority over the District's budget. Also, the President appoints the District's judges, and the District still has no voting representation in Congress. Because of these and other limitations on local government, many citizens of the District continue to lobby for the greater autonomy, such as full statehood.

The Home Rule Act specifically prohibits the Council from enacting certain laws that, among other restrictions, would:

lend public credit for private projects;
impose a tax on individuals who work in the District but live elsewhere;
make any changes to the Heights of Buildings Act of 1910;
pass any law changing the composition or jurisdiction of the local courts;
enact a local budget that is not balanced; and
gain any additional authority over the National Capital Planning Commission, Washington Aqueduct, or District of Columbia National Guard.

Laws blocked by Congress

The Home Rule Act gives Congress the authority to block any laws passed by the D.C. council. Since its enactment, Congress has exercised this power several times.
In 1988, Congress voted to block D.C. from expending local funds to cover abortion services through Medicaid. This was repealed in 2009 but then reinstated in 2011.
Passed by the D.C. Council in 1992, the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act, which allowed both gay and straight couples to register as domestic partners, allowing familial recognition for such things as hospital visits, and allows the partners of D.C. government employees to purchase private health insurance, was blocked by Congress. The act was finally allowed to go into effect in 2001.
In 1996, the D.C. Council passed a clean needle exchange program law. However, in 1998, Congress voted to block the law. In 2007, Congress voted to lift the ban, thus allowing the law to go into effect.
In 1998, Congress voted to block Initiative 59 – Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998 – via the Barr amendment. This also caused the result of the referendum to be withheld. When this was challenged in court, it was determined that withholding the result of the referendum violated the First Amendment. In response to this, another amendment was passed in 2000 that simply overturned Initiative 59. In 2009, Congress voted to overturn the ban on Initiative 59, allowing D.C.'s medical marijuana law to go into effect, with the first medical marijuana sale occurring in 2013.
In 2014, Congress voted to block Initiative 71 – Legalization of Possession of Minimal Amounts of Marijuana for Personal Use Act of 2014 – by blocking funds from being used to enact laws, rules or regulations for reducing or legalizing any Schedule I drug. However, since this was passed after the results of Initiative 71 had already been announced, it did not prevent the legalization of marijuana, but had the effect of leaving marijuana legal, but without the authority to expend funds on enacting regulations or taxation.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

don't they need probable cause? or can they just tell the DOJ they think some people did something
and let them find a crime?

do they just hand them evidence they gathered and say charge them?

a reply to: sarahvital

For criminal contempt of Congress they go through their required steps. Once that is done (usually a vote to refer contempt charges) its turned over to the DOJ, who appoints a prosecutor and they go from there.

Probable cause is needed to make an arrest / charge a person. Since contempt of Congress is straight forward - here is a subpoena for you to testify on this date and time - if the person doesnt show you have probable cause. A charge doesnt mean a person is guilty. Its up to the prosecution to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant gets to put on his defense and they go from there.


Cornell Law School - Contempt of Congress

The basics -

Currently, actions for which individuals can be held in contempt of Congress are largely a matter of statutory law and focus mostly on when individuals refuse to appear or give testimony for a Congressional investigation or hearing. The U.S. Supreme Court in Watkins v. United States confirmed Congressional power to issue subpoenas, stating that all citizens have a duty to “cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action,” and that they must “respond to subpoenas [and] testify.” Federal law penalizes individuals who refuse to respond to Congressional inquiries, as 2 U.S.C. § 192 states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 months’ imprisonment.

The problem -

The matter under Congressional investigation, however, must be a subject over which Congress has legislative power before an uncooperative witness may be convicted of contempt. The U.S. Supreme Court in Quinn v. United States also recognized certain limitations on Congressional power to investigate and summon individuals, namely, that it “cannot be used to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid legislative purpose. Nor does it extend to an area in which Congress is forbidden to legislate. Similarly, the power to investigate must not be confused with any of the powers of law enforcement; those powers are assigned under our Constitution to the Executive and the Judiciary. Still further limitations on the power to investigate are found in the specific individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights, such as the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination which is in issue here.”

Congresses investigation of Jan 6th is not a legislative issue imo. The thing to remember - in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law and not the court of public opinion. Just as a person who gets pulled over and cited for speeding, the proper forum to challenge the citation is in court and not roadside. The same applies here. The proper forum to challenge Congressional contempt is a court room.

ETA - In order for a person to be convicted of contempt of Congress, the actions of the House and the committee will be reviewed to determine if the person can be convicted. If there is no legislative oversight reason present, the person charged walks.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you! That was a perfect explanation of the process.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

as long as im not overstepping or stepping on your toes.

sent you an unrelated pm.

a reply to: TheRedneck

What's scarier is the cost to actually defend yourself if these tyrants come for an innocent US Citizen.

It's well over a million dollars.

a reply to: sarahvital

From a law enforcement aspect one of the main responsibilities of police is to investigate possible violations of the law. If a person calls and claims someone broke the law that is generally enough for police to look into the matter. If the person reporting the law violation has evidence it will be looked at and taken / secured.

If police determine a law violation occurred an in depth investigation begins. This is where the RP (reporting party) is asked to explain everything relevant, including evidence and how that evidence was obtained, making a written statement documenting the RP's actions/observations etc.

Depending on the crime and department an officer will be assigned as the primary investigating officer. If its a high profile crime, like Murder, its usually assigned to the detective branch (for small departments it usually assigned to the officer with the most experience or they ask for the Country Sheriff / State police to assist / run the investigation).

From there, as evidence is gathered, its looked at to see who its pointing to as a suspect. As the case develops, people are interviewed, evidence collected / sent to a crime lab. When a suspect is identified and there is enough PC (probable cause), The officer/detective will file a PC statement that lists the crimes the person is accused of breaking and its submitted to the prosecuting attorney (for felonies). The application is reviewed by the PA (Prosecuting attorney) and if they are ok with the info, evidence and investigation outcomes then they draw up a charge sheet (different states / agencies use different terms), take it before a judge to have them sign off / issue the warrants.

If its lacking anything the PA contacts the department / officer and explains whats lacking / needed. The needed information is looked into, collected / obtained / people are interviewed / reinterviewed / new people interviewed and submitted to the PA.

I am leaving out a lot of the steps / in depth explanation for brevity. Hopefully this answers the other part of your question. My last response was for contempt of congress. After rereading your post I thought maybe you were interested in the process outside of Congress.

The ultimate person who decides if someone is going to be charged resides solely with the prosecuting attorney. As an extreme example, a person could kill all 5 of his neighbors, have 10 witnesses who saw the suspect do it, and there might be a truck load of evidence, and the PA could still decline to prosecute.

That discretion applies to -
the speeding ticket example
the contempt of congress example
the murder example.

If you have questions / want more info just ask.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh my! The density so thick! I think you must be trolling!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

.....

Do you, or do you not accept Xcathdra's conclusion? If the answer is yes, then why do you keep arguing that the House Select Committee doesn't have jurisdiction?

Why you keep confusing this "investigation" with an impeachment is beyond me.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It would depend on the purpose of the committee. If it's solely to go after Trump then the committee violates the legislative reason requirement to charge someone with contempt. If the committee was to review the actions of the Capital Police and the Sergent at arms for the House, which I don't believe is their intentions, it would be valid.

It all depends on the purpose of the committee. Not to mention the legality of the committee.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It would depend on the purpose of the committee.

That's why the Resolution is so important.
www.congress.gov...
january6th.house.gov...

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

Consistent with the functions described in section 4, the purposes of the Select Committee are the following:

(1) To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex (hereafter referred to as the “domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol”) and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region and other instrumentalities of government, as well as the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.

(2) To examine and evaluate evidence developed by relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist attack.

(3) To build upon the investigations of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts by reviewing the investigations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of other executive branch, congressional, or independent bipartisan or nonpartisan commission investigations into the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol, including investigations into influencing factors related to such attack.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Based on that info there is no legislative purpose of the committee. That is backed up by the people being called as witnesses.

The committees purpose is plainly political and not legislative.

Since the Capital Police answer to Pelosi, it is a conflict of interest for her to create and then hand pick all the members. She and Adam Schiff are defacto witnesses.

Having House Dems investigate Jan 6th is the same as having the SS investigate Auschwitz.