When Congress Became Illegal - Jan. 6th, 2020

a reply to: Xcathdra

Executive authority cannot be shared. That in itself violates the separation of powers, a principle that, while not specifically enumerated, resounds throughout the entire Constitution and has been upheld by the courts since the beginning of the country.

The FBI is a part of the Executive Branch of government. Congress is not.

Where is Congress given executive authority over anyone not a member of Congress?

TheRedneck

a reply to: mzinga

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

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

*sigh*

Look, this isn't hard. Slow down and think.

Was Hillary Clinton, or anyone involved with the Begazi hearings, a sitting government official?

The answer is yes.

Can Congress impeach a sitting government official?

The answer is yes.

If those are both true, then Congress has jurisdiction to provide oversight. That includes the ability to hold hearings for fact-finding to determine if an impeachment is appropriate.

Now...

Is Donald Trump a sitting government official?

The answer is no.

Is anyone involved in these hearings a sitting government official?

The answer is still no.

Can Congress impeach them?

The answer is no, because the maximum Congress can do in an impeachment is remove them from office.

If the answer to the above questions is no, then Congress does not have jurisdiction.

Are there any words you need defined?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

How would anyone know without an investigation?

If there is not enough evidence to know a crime has occurred, there is no reason to investigate.

Should Congress investigate whether Sookiechacha conspired with Nancy Pelosi to illegally corner the market on gourmet ice cream? According to you they should; it could have happened and how will we know it didn't without an investigation? According to me, they shouldn't because there is no evidence such a crime ever occurred.

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

Is that government official still in office? If not, what actual penalty can Congress impose? How can he be removed from an office he doesn't currently hold?

Congress can impeach... Congress cannot prosecute.

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.

They can certainly refer cases to the DoJ for potential prosecution. So can anyone else. That is not an action taken by Congress, it is a referral to the agency that does have jurisdiction.

Do you believe the DoJ should just take Congress at their word and not conduct their own investigation? So why is Congress trying to do the DoJs job again?

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

They had jurisdiction over Senator McCarthy. Nowhere have I claimed Congress cannot censure its own members; it certainly can. Had there been other sitting government officials involved, Congress has the power to impeach them. Otherwise, no, Congress does not have any power to investigate private citizens.

That's the DoJ's job.

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.

And how exactly do you know these things? Did a little bird tell you? Some talking head on CNN? What is your source for this "knowledge"?

My source is the US Constitution.

Everything in your OP ignores precedence.

Everything in my OP relies on precedence, mainly precedence in the form of Separation of Powers.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

In short, I believe Congress has now officially gone rouge,

Great post, Congress has gone crazy since 2016. Impeached Trump twice on nothing while Bien is a "nothing to see here" event, and that is just the tip of the iceberg as to the wrong they have done and are doing today. The good news is people on all sides are seeing much of this that just keeps getting more extreme say WTF. Even things people at first thought was a good idea are now just shaking their heads in disbelief and we will see that in Nov.

a reply to: TheRedneck

If there is not enough evidence to know a crime has occurred, there is no reason to investigate.

That wasn't the question you asked. However, a crime was committed, a break in, a burglary and an illegal wire tap upon the Democratic Committee National Headquarters. A congressional investigative hearing was convened to find evidence of who knew what and when they knew it. It resulted in 40 indictments, 2 being Cabinet members and the resignation of the President of the United States.

Is that government official still in office? If not, what actual penalty can Congress impose? How can he be removed from an office he doesn't currently hold?

You're confused again.
Congressional investigations and Select Committees are not formed to impose penalties or remove anyone from office. They're created to find out what happened, why and how it happened and what legislation can be enacted to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Should Congress investigate whether Sookiechacha conspired with Nancy Pelosi to illegally corner the market on gourmet ice cream?

I'm sure Jim Jordon would have no problem advocating for such an investigation.

a reply to: TheRedneck
You didn't have to explain those terms but it seems like you didn't read the link I provided Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction which even cites USCS Const. Art. I, § 8, Cl 17.

That is what supposedly gives them the power to hold these proceedings and it is different than just the power to legislate.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Should Congress investigate whether Sookiechacha conspired with Nancy Pelosi to illegally corner the market on gourmet ice cream? According to you they should; it could have happened and how will we know it didn't without an investigation?

I think the legal term is "throw sh!t on the wall to see what sticks", but that isn't even important to them as to whether they find something or not, they do not care. Their true purpose is to just get it in the news, up front type of situation for X weeks, or years as we saw with the Russian hoax. The end result many times isn't even covered as the damage is already done by just suggesting. Today everyone is guilty, doesn't matter if proven innocent in the end, they are still guilty. So you have all this effort on the nothing burgers and the real events are nothing to see here right up front, like Hunter's laptops, Hell Trump was impeached for even suggesting they should look into Biden'/Hunter's dealings while Biden boasted holding up a billion if the prosecutor was not fired who was looking into Hunter's dealings. I think polling has shown that 35% of Biden voters had no clue to anything dealing with Biden/Hunter and Ukraine and said they would not have voted as they did if they knew.

This is how they work and it has been very successful, but it is now catching up to them because the internet never stops.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Russian hoax.

Let's be factually clear on that.

Mueller declares his Russia report did not exonerate Trump

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared.

"Over the course of my career I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious," he said.

He added: "Much more needs to be done in order to protect against this intrusion, by the Russians but others as well."

apnews.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That wasn't the question you asked.

No, it was an answer to a question you asked. And you just answered that very question:

However, a crime was committed, a break in, a burglary and an illegal wire tap upon the Democratic Committee National Headquarters. A congressional investigative hearing was convened to find evidence of who knew what and when they knew it. It resulted in 40 indictments, 2 being Cabinet members and the resignation of the President of the United States.

So it was already known that a crime was committed and there was a likelihood of someone in office being involved. Congressional oversight requires an investigation at that point, and Congress is justified in conducting one for purposes of determining if an impeachment is needed.

In the present farce, there is no evidence that anyone currently occupying any government position had anything to do with the incident. Therefore Congress has no power to impeach and no special interest that would justify an investigation.

I repeat, Congress does not get to decide what powers Congress has. The powers of Congress are specifically spelled out, as well as the powers prohibited to Congress. The power to subpoena and to hold in Contempt of Congress are implied only where Congress is exercising its legitimate powers. In this case, there is no action Congress can take against anyone accused of misconduct, so the investigation, the hearing, and all related charges of Contempt of Congress are outside Congress' jurisdiction.

Congressional investigations and Select Committees are not formed to impose penalties or remove anyone from office. They're created to find out what happened, why and how it happened and what legislation can be enacted to make sure it doesn't happen again.

That power is not specified in the US Constitution. Besides, all I have heard so far is congress critters yelling over each other while making up facts as they are needed to further the conversation. That's about as far from "fact-finding" as one can get.

I'm sure Jim Jordon would have no problem advocating for such an investigation.

As long as it's conducted by the DoJ, no problem. It might be superfuous, it might be a waste of time, but at least the DoJ has executive authority and jurisdiction. If you were found likely to be guilty of a crime, the DoJ could legally prosecute you. Congress cannot conduct such an investigation unless there is some likelihood of the crime existing and Nancy Pelosi remains a US Representative. Their only prosecutorial powers are limited to members of Congress and impeachment of sitting government officials.

TheRedneck

a reply to: daskakik

Artlcle 1, Section 8, Clause 17, in its entirety:

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;

That does not contain one word about executive authority. It concerns legislative authority only.

Congress, as the legislative body of the United States, has legislative authority over United States property. Not executive; legislative. They make the laws; they do not enforce the laws.

TheRedneck

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), chair of the January 6 Committee, said Monday evening there would be no criminal referrals of former President Donald Trump or anyone else to the Department of Justice (DOJ) — and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) promptly disagreed in public.

twitter.com...

Says the guy with a BLM background on his Twitter.....

When you have a Rpublican, Cheney, pushing to get another Republican and a Democrat like this pushes back....well....it means the SHTF and it is all over.

You should expect in the coming months more attacks on 45 constituents in am attempt to keep him from running in 2024.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
That does not contain one word about executive authority. It concerns legislative authority only.

I had already quoted the whole thing and linked the interpretation.

Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction written as: "Exclusive Legislation" in that clause is not regular legislative power. I would have to agree since it also mentions "Cases" which makes it sound like they have additional powers in that District.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter because those tasked with interpreting the constitution seem to agree that this clause gives the legislative body this power in that jurisdiction.

ETA: Why add a whole other clause to grant power that they already had?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Congressional oversight requires an investigation at that point, and Congress is justified in conducting one for purposes of determining if an impeachment is needed.

A congressional investigation is not an impeachment hearing, and while a congressional investigation can lead to impeachment, an impeachment hearing is not a congressional investigation. They are 2 different things.

In this case, there is no action Congress can take against anyone accused of misconduct...

That is not the function or purpose of a congressional investigation.

The power to subpoena and to hold in Contempt of Congress are implied only where Congress is exercising its legitimate powers.

Congress' investigational powers to look into the events leading up to, and the events of Jan 6th are legitimate.

Their only prosecutorial powers are limited to members of Congress and impeachment of sitting government officials.

There you go again! A congressional investigation isn't a "prosecution".

a reply to: TheRedneck

Great post and makes sense to me. But, the problem is that only a small minority of folks understand this. The rest, as you elude to in your Grand Jury anecdote, are easily persuaded by a prosecutor (i.e. MSM) when there is no defense.

In other words, common sense like this rarely makes its way past an internet forum. Those who should know are complacent or willfully ignorant. They have the power, we don't.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why didn't the Senate create the hearing? This entire thing is a farce. It may be legal but it is not following the rules.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

Congressional oversight requires an investigation at that point, and Congress is justified in conducting one for purposes of determining if an impeachment is needed.

A congressional investigation is not an impeachment hearing, and while a congressional investigation can lead to impeachment, an impeachment hearing is not a congressional investigation. They are 2 different things.

In this case, there is no action Congress can take against anyone accused of misconduct...

That is not the function or purpose of a congressional investigation.

The power to subpoena and to hold in Contempt of Congress are implied only where Congress is exercising its legitimate powers.

Congress' investigational powers to look into the events leading up to, and the events of Jan 6th are legitimate.

Their only prosecutorial powers are limited to members of Congress and impeachment of sitting government officials.

There you go again! A congressional investigation isn't a "prosecution".

A congressional investigation dissecting the minutae of Jan 6 for purposes other than identifying criminal misconduct is a procedure intended to obfuscate and obstruct. The most expendable players were already dismissed from their respective occupations, all that's left is political theater to officially cement the federal retcon and make it legally binding. Their shame and doubt is being ceremoniously buried under a mountain of red tape.

originally posted by: Annee

Let's be factually clear on that.

Mueller declares his Russia report did not exonerate Trump

And what the F does that mean? Its like someone is under investigation and they end up getting them on something not even related. Mueller has never gone into what that all means, just left it all ambiguous, so yes that is a prefect example of what I'm talking about. How about investigating the improper use of the Steel report that they all knew was BS from the start to get authorization to spy on Trump. That there my friend is Watergate x10 kind of stuff.

a reply to: daskakik

I think you're maybe confusing "exclusive" with "executive." Exclusive legislative power simply means Congress and only Congress can make laws in Washington DC. In states, the legislative authority of Congress is not exclusive; it is shared with state legislatures.

This clause was meant to clearly address that Washington, DC cannot have the equivalent of a state legislature. The District of Columbia is not a state.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

A congressional investigation is not an impeachment hearing, and while a congressional investigation can lead to impeachment, an impeachment hearing is not a congressional investigation. They are 2 different things.

Based on that, all Congressional hearings have been illegal. Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress investigative powers... so Congress cannot investigate for purposes of impeachment either.

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

That is not the function or purpose of a congressional investigation.

Again, that means that all Congressional investigations are beyond Congress' jurisdiction and therefore illegal.

Congress' investigational powers to look into the events leading up to, and the events of Jan 6th are legitimate.

Again, please show me where you get that. Your "feelz" is not a sufficient answer.

There you go again! A congressional investigation isn't a "prosecution".

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

And once again, I will disagree with you.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I think you're maybe confusing "exclusive" with "executive."

No, I'm going by what the interpretation I linked says:

Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction is applied when the Federal Government possesses, by whatever method acquired, all of the authority of the State, and in which the State concerned has not reserved to itself the right to exercise any of the authority concurrently with the U.S. except the right to serve civil or criminal process in the area relative to activities which occurred outside the area.

Which is basically saying something similar to what you said, since "Washington, DC cannot have the equivalent of a state legislature", Congress fills that role however they want because there is no guide to what they can and can't do, just that in that area they possess all of the authority of the state.

That might not fit your interpretation but I think that is how they are interpreting it and that is why they can do what they do.