Posted on 09/13/2016 2:58:06 AM PDT by PghBaldy
The House will hold a hearing Monday to determine why the Department of Justice granted immunity to the technician who destroyed thousands of Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails while they were under congressional subpoena.
Paul Combetta, the Platte River Networks (PRN) technician who scrubbed some 30,000 emails from Clinton’s private server, will testify before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Slobs. Why don’t they do something about it? F king losers.
The problem here is nothing ever comes out of these meetings. It’s showmanship to make it look like something is being done. I like Gowdy but hearings are BS unless someone actually pays for their crimes.
Gowdy is a friggen loser idiot. Had a press conference once.
Dog & pony show. Make us think they are actually doing something.
The GOP really shouldn’t say it again, but what these hearings & investigations have done is cause Hillary to be much more likely to lose in November. She would be doing much better in the polls if not for the constant drip drip drip on the emails/server/Foundation. To be fair, much of the work has been done by Judicial Watch & Citizen’s United.
Maybe the thugs in the DOJ are protecting the thugs outside the DOJ...
True,
The only solution remaining is to impeach and remove the corrupt crimminal Resident.
And congress long ago gave up the power of the purse to avoid shutting down government.
Congress will not impeach 0bama
Two black AG’s and both give immunity to everyone who did anything to cover up or help cover up or to assist the crooks in this admin. Show me an honest top Dept. head in Gov.
He was given immunity from prosecution at some level by the DoJ. It does not mean he is immune nor precluded from being questioned by the Congress of the United States, even if he does show up and assert his fifth amendment rights. Nor does his immunity preclude him from ignoring a duly issued subpoena for such.
Congress has the right, I believe, to forcibly compel this man to testify (or sit there like a dummy) if they want to, they should exercise that right and televise the whole damned thing.
“even if he does show up and assert his fifth amendment rights.
If you’ve been granted immunity, how can you plead the fifth?
I would guess that depends on what type of immunity he was granted: transactional or use immunity.
If you are granted immunity, WHY plead the fifth at all?
No, this was a bribe to him to let him stay silent while APPEARING to proceed with the “thorough, unbiased, independent investigation”, to AVOID getting answers to questions they did not WANT to ask.
Democrats are LAW-LESS because Republicans are BALL-LESS!!
Good point. No one is ever going to know what this immunity agreement consists of. Same with Pagliano(sp?). There was no reason to issue any type of immunity in the first place. The entire exercise was a CYA action by Obama and Hillary.
They are. They are talking about it. That is what congress does.
Uh-oh. Gowdy’s gonna holler at somebody again. While the cameras are on, of course.
This could com back to bite them (the DOJ). If he really has immunity, he will have to testify at the congressional hearings. He’s a small fish. If he really was told to do it in January (as the story goes), and then had this “Oh S#!@” moment, because he forgot, so what if he can’t be prosecuted. OTH, if he was ordered to do it by the Clinton machine after the FOIA order was sent, he will be forced to expose them.
If the DOJ found nothing wrong with what Hilary did, then there is no reason to provide immunity.
Congress has ALL the power in washington, the executive and judicial branch operate according to the whims of CONGRESS!
“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. One has to wonder how a previous Congress might have responded to Alberto Gonzales’s endless recitations of “I do not recall.”
Congress can Remove the President
Congress can remove the head of every executive agency Congress can remove ALL of their employees
Congress can Abolish every agency they so choose
Congress can remove EVERY JUDGE IN AMERICA, including every supreme court justice.
Congress can abolish every federal court except the supreme Court
Congress can decide which cases the Judicial Branch can hear and decide
CONGRESS can Imprison ANYONE they want for any reason they so desire for as long as they wish.
Congress can declare WAR
No other governing body has even 10% of the power CONGRESS has!!
CONGRESS IS ALLOWING ALL OF IT!!!
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.