Then there is always the “sources and methods” clause of the Constitution people like Christopher Wray like to cite....oh, wait...
“Show me the man and I will find the crime.” —Manhattan District Attorney
No, that’s for the people.
In one category, you have government.
In the other, you have the people.
Doesn’t take a genius to understand the difference.
The right to remain silent, the statute of limitations, and the presumption of innocence should be revoked or at least limited for government agents when acting in their official capacity. Fir exampke, when police or ATF turn off their bodycams, and then a suspect is shot and killed, or they were on but the footage is then deleted, there is no reason to presume innocence on the part of the agents. Similarly when the FBI releases footage of the Jan 6 breach, but the frames just happen to glitch when the barricades are first breached. The odds against that happening by pure chance are astronomically high and should be admissible to establish malfeasance.
“who has written a book (book deal) about he investigated Trump and pushed to get him prosecuted for his business dealings.”
New York aka Hell on Earth I, land of total political corruption. When the state falls completely into ruin and they get on the air begging for donations to help get it out of trouble I’ll say “Here’s my donation ... $0.01.
An *employee” may use the 5th to not incriminate themselves of criminal wrongdoing. That said, the ‘free press’ gives us the right to investigate all publicly owned information to hold *government* accountable. If the 5th is used to shield the *government* activities then that person should be held in contempt. They have no right to keep government activities silent.
The very act of doing so should be cause for a larger investigation.
Law should read: As a citizen any government employee can use the 5th Amendment to personally avoid answering a question that might incriminate them BUT, if the government employee uses the 5th, he/she will be immediately removed from their current position and will be barred forever from holding any other governmental position...... Period.....
“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”
Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions.
Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)
If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.
Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.
Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.
Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.
Some references
[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html
[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf
[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/
In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.
In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.
Eisenhower issued an executive order to the executive branch employees that said that they were constitutionally guaranteed their 5th amendment rights and that would be respected but if they invoked them in regards to their official acts then they would be fired immediately. It still stands, it’s never been revoked.
In a land close at hand and a different time the answer would have been an obvious and resounding, NO! The exception being in the interest of national defense in time of war and not some conjured and convoluted logic in peace time or otherwise.
The 5th amendment is for the inalienable right for an individual to NOT have to testify against themself (“self incrimination”). Just logically, how could a non-person (corporation, government agency, etc.) “invoke the fifth” amendment protection?
Question is, if for example, a government agency (say the IRS, DOJ, FBI, DHS, CIA, NSA, etc., etc.) were engaged in illegal or corrupt activities, how do you prove that, if the “individuals” involved are able to invoke the fifth amendment (to protect themselves), which could be argued as being the same thing as the agency in question invoking the fifth amendment?
When he performed these activities he was receiving Federal Government employment, probably is getting Federal Government pensions, and had access to Federal Government funds (potentially some illegally used for his purpose). That makes him an agent of the Federal Government.
He's no longer an agent of the Federal Government, so the point isn't relevant anymore. If he was still an employee, his decision to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in a work-related matter automatically puts him in a position where he has a clear conflict of interest and may be subject to immediate termination.
I was involved in a legal matter some years ago where one of the corporate officers for the company that was the PLAINTIFF in the case was put in a conflicted position this way. He was immediately relieved of his duties, which I learned at the time was required under the law in that state.
The Constitution describes the rights of the people. There are no such rights described for the government. In fact, the Constitution describes the limitations of the governments power.
Government has NO rights.
Only The People do.
That means Government has no right to free speech.
Or due process.
Or the right to avoid testifying against itself.
Or to a speedy trial.
Or a jury of their peers.
Basically list a right and government isn’t granted it.
Government has only has responsibilities.
Gaetz raises a very good question.