FBI Withheld Notes From Their Interviews With Christopher Steele From Senate Judiciary Committee

More felonies from Comey and the corrupt cabal within the FBI.

Grubering.

It’s a Democrat thing.

And don't forget...there were no notes, tapes, videos of Clinton's interview and she was not under oath.

I think they call that...."let's do lunch".

More popcorn time.

Comey: Seven Feet of Leaking Stench

Comey is in hot water.

While there is no doubt in my mind that this should be the case, I will believe it when I actually see it.

The FBI is stonewalling and withholding information from both House Intel and Senate Judiciary Committees because they lied to the FISC in order to get that spy warrant they needed.

The US Congress has extraordinary powers to compel evidence and testimony, especially the US Senate. If they really want it they could have it before dinner.

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.

And why did Trump appoint Wray?

ping

I’m not sure the water is even a little bit warm.

Grassley reveals the FBI KNEW Steele lied about his contact with media outlets, yet they DID NOT disclose this very pertinent information to the FISA court.

My significant point of reference is Watergate, thus I see this as more major than minor.

Also, American wants to know.

Let's UNREDACT EVERYTHING! Okay?

American wants, and deserves to know.

.

The FBI needs to be disbanded, or -radically- transformed. It must be so dramatic that the public knows their decades of illegal BS has truly ended.
FISA was an attempt after the Church commission to hold them accountable in wiretapping US citizens. They simply weaponized FISA into a more powerful tool.

They must be stopped hard. Several of them need to do prison time and brutal reorganization must occur. One is that they completely lose any intelligence mission and must be refocused on bank robbers and kidnappers, etc.
They must lose any authority to investigate local police departments and must suffer severe cuts in personnel.

This is all making Watergate look like a third-rate burglary.

The FBI is committing crimes. Who prosecutes them, the AG?

“CONGRESS IS ALLOWING ALL OF IT!!!”

One of the saddest things I’ve observed during my lifetime is the failure of the Republican House of Representatives since the GOP became the majority in 2010. They enabled the Obama plan to infiltrate government and “fundamentally change” the United States instead of obstructing it as their voters wished. Not one corrupt politician or bureaucrat was impeached or disciplined by Congress. Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress and he sneered at them. Boehner & Ryan, plus the rest of the House Republicans since January 2011 have been pathetic. Likewise the GOP majority in the Senate under McConnell has been disgusting.

Since January 2017 a Republican President has been in office. He has signed every piece of legislation put in front of him by the Republican Congress. Yet Congress has been unable to end Obamacare, pass a budget, reign in spending, approve all of the President’s appointments or secure the border. They have been extremely good at caving to the left, obstructing the Republican president, and increasing the federal deficit.

I’ve watched 8 years of GOP investigative hearings go no where. Trey Gowdy, Darrell Issa, Jason Chaffitz and others gave red meat speeches yet Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Susan Powers, Huma Abedin, James Comey and other corrupt officialsl walk free today and enjoy lucrative consulting and media work. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know they are bulletproof. Almost every day black robed tyrants on the federal bench violate the Constitution they swore to protect with impunity because they know the GOP House would not consider doing its job by impeaching them.

I am done with voting for serial liars and arrogant elitists who look down on the average citizen while catering to the inside the beltway establishment, the deep state, multinational corporations, and wealthy donors. I no longer believe it is better to vote for a Republican who gives lip service to conservatism and then enables the growth of the socialist state in order to prevent a card carrying Democrat communist from being elected. The end result is the same. I do have another choice in 2018. Stay at home on election day.

And it all means nothing unless finally, at long last, people are held to account for their criminality.

This is how CONGRESS used to treat the FAKE NEWS::

HINDS PRECEDENTS!

1108 PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. § 1635
1635. The House arrested and arraigned at the bar a newspaper
reporter for alleged statements reflecting on the integrity of a Member.
A person arraigned at the bar of the House must be dealt with in
strict accordance with the terms of the resolution ordering his arrest
and arraignment.
A person arraigned for contempt submitted a statement in writing
which did not appear in full in the Journal.
A person being under examination at the bar, the questions propounded
to him were first approved by the House.
A person being under examination at the bar, the questions and
answers were recorded in the Journal.
On June 10, 1870,’ Mr. Thomas Fitch, of Nevada, rising to a question of privilege,
laid before the House certain articles in a newspaper reflecting on his integrity
as a Representative, tending to show that he might have accepted bribes from those
favoring the recognition of the Cuban Republic. Mr. Fitch then offered the following:
Resolved, That W. Scott Smith, the reporter of the New York Evening Post, be brought to the bar
of this House to show cause, if he can, why he should not be expelled from the reporters’ gallery for
libellous statements reflecting upon the integrity of Members of this House.
The chairman of the committee which investigated the matter, who had been
quoted in the article as authority for the doubt cast on Mr. Fitch’s integrity, having
stated to the House that the evidence exonerated Mr. Fitch, the resolution was
agreed to, yeas 126, nays 40.
On the same day W. Scott Smith was brought to the bar of the House by the
Sergeant-at-Arms, and by direction of the Speaker the resolution of the House and
the newspaper extracts which Mr. Fitch had presented to the House were read.
The Speaker- then announced to the respondent that he was at liberty to
answer in accordance with the terms of the resolution.
The respondent then submitted a statement in writing, which was read to the
House, but was not entered in the Journal.
It being proposed to interrogate the prisoner, and Members proposing interrogatories,
the Speaker held that if a Member wished to submit a question he should
propose it in writing and the questioii would be submitted to the House to be
approved by unanimous consent without debate. The prisoner at the bar could
make his answer in writing if he should choose.
A question proposed by Mr. Fitch having been approved by the House and
propounded to the respondent, he returned an answer in part, and in part declined,
on the groimd that he coidd not divulge tlie source of his information. This question
and the answer appear in the Journal. The answer was in writing.
The answer having been read, Mr. Samuel S. Cox, of New York, offered the
following:
Resolved, That all proceedings in the case of Mr. W. Scott Smith pending be suspended, and the
party be, and he is hereby, discharged.
‘ Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal pp. 957, 961, 963, 1068; Globe pp. 4314, 4318, 4692.

1G36 POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT. 1109
Mr. Fitch, on the ground that the answer was evasive, moved that the witness be
compelled to answer, by holding him in contempt of the House until he should
answer.
The Speaker held in regard to this motion:
The Chair has very grave doubts about the propriety of entertaining any Ruch motion. The resolution
of the House directed that William Scott Smith, the reporter of the New York Evening Post, be
brought to the bar of this House to show cause, if he can, why he should not be expelled from the reporters’
gallery of the House for libelous statements reflecting on Members of the House. It has always been
the practice of the House, in the prosecution of similar inquiries and investigations, carefully to limit
action according to the terms of the resolution under which any respondent may be brought t<j the bar
of the House. The Chair, therefore, does not at all agree that it is in the nature of a privileged question,
after this respondent has been brought to the bar of the House, to compel him to answer inquiries not
within the purview of the order which brought him here.
The question recurring on the resolution offered by Mr. Cox, the following substitute
was proposed by Mr. Aaron A. Sargent, of California:
That W. Scott Smith, having failed to purge himself of the charge of having slandered a Member
of this House, and having declined to give the sources of the information upon which he alleges he based
his statement, be expelled from the reporters’ gallery.
After debate, the House, on motion of Mr. John Famsworth, of Illinois, voted
to refer the subject to a select committee of five.
The Speaker then informed the respondent that he was no longer in the custody
of the House.
Mr. Luke P. Poland, of Vermont, chairman of the select committee, reported, on
June 22, a recommendation that the resolution referred to them be laid on the table.
The report of the committee was ordered printed.
1636. For publications affecting the reputations of Members reporters
have been expelled from the House.—On March 4, 1846,’ Mr. William
Sawyer, of Oliio, sent to the Clerk’s table a copy of a public newspaper printed in
New York, called “The New York Tribune,” containing a letter purporting to have
been \vi-itten by a correspondent of that paper in Washington, personally abusive
of Ml’. Sawyer, and requested that the letter might be read by the Clerk.
The letter having been read and Mr. Sawyer having concluded his remarks,
Mr. Jacob Brinkerhoff, of Ohio, offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That the reporters and letter writers for the New York Tribime be expelled from this
House.
Under the operation of the previous question the resolution was agreed to, yeas
122, nays 48.
1637. On February 9, 1847,- Mr. Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, offered the
following as a question of privilege:
Resolved, That “James A. Houston, reporter for the Union,” having published a card in that paper
of last evening, assuming the responsibility in toto of the false and scandalous report of the proceedings
of this House on Saturday last, be, and he is hereby, expelled from this House.
‘First session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 483; Globe, pp. 457, 458.
‘’Second session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 320

After debate, which related principally to whether or not the report was intentionally
inaccurate, the resolution was rejected, yeas 11, nays 133.’
1638. For improper conduct in connection with legislation reporters
have been expelled from the House.—On May 17, I860,- Mr. Warren Winslow,
of North Carolina, fi-om the Select Committee on the Subject of Executive Influence
in the House, reported the testimony of F. W. Walker, and a portion of the testimony
of C. Wendell, relating to the acceptance of money by Walker from Wendell.
Walker was a newspaper correspondent and had accepted money from Wendell for
furthering, in the press, the interests of Wendell before Congress. The report was
accompanied by the following resolution:
Resolved, That F. W. Walker be expelled from the reporters’ gallery of the House.
This resolution was agreed to.
1639. On March 3, 187.5,^ the House agreed to the following resolution,
reported from the Comanittee on Ways and Means
:
Resolved, That any reporter or correspondent having a seat in the gallery by permission of the
Speaker who has received any fee, bribe, or reward in connection with any legislation pending in
either House of Congress should be deprived of such privilege; and such conduct as disclosed before
the Committee on Ways and Means is severely censured by the House.
1 640. The Senate committed John Nugent for contempt in publishing’
a treaty pending in executive session.
In the Nugent case, in 1848, the Court held that the Senate and
House were the sole judges of their own contempts.
The Senate has power, when acting in a case within its jurisdiction,
to punish all contempts of its authority.
No court “ may inquire directly into the correctness or propriety “ of
a commitment by either House, or discharge the prisoner on habeas
corpus.
A warrant of commitment “ need not set forth the particxilar facts
which constitute the alleged contempt.”
Form of warrant for commitment of John Nugent.
Each House has a right to hold secret sessions whenever in its judgment
the proceedings should require secrecy.
In 1848 the Senate committed Jolin Nugent, his contempt growing out of the
publication of a treaty pending before the Senate in executive session. The proceedings
in this case were conducted in executive session.
Nugent petitioned for discharge on writ of habeas corpus; and on May 11, 1848,
Judge Cranch, of the circuit court of the District of Columbia, handed downadecision
(Nugent V. Beale, Cranch’s Reports, D. C). The summary sets forth:
‘ In the Twenty-ninth Congress (184C-47) the Senate expelled from its floor and gallery the representatives
of two papers wliich had published articles libelous on the Senate. (Smith’s Digest,
Senate Mis. Doc. No. 278, second session Fifty-third Congress, pp. 4.5-77.)
On January 27, 1848, the Senate passed a resolution readmitting to a seat in the reporters’ gallery
Jesse E. Dow, who was excluded by an order of the Senate of March IG, 1846. (First session Thirtieth
Congress, Globe, p. 262.)
= First session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 851, 852; Globe, pp. 2157, 2158.
‘Second session Forty-third Congress, Journal, p. 636.

1640 POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT. 1111
1. Every court, including the Senate and House of Representatives, is the sole judge of its own
contempts; and in case of commitment for contempt, in such case, no other court can have a right
to inquire directly into the correctness or propriety of the commitment, or to discharge the prisoner on
habeas corpus.
2. The warrant of commitment need not set forth the particular facts which constitute the alleged
contempt.
3. The Senate of the United States haa power to punish for contempts of its authority in cases of
which it has jurisdiction, and an inquiry whether any person, and who, had violated the rule of the
Senate which requires that all treaties laid before them should bekeptsecretuntil the Senate should take
off the injunction of secrecy, is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate.
4. The Senate of the United States has a right to hold secret sessions whenever in its judgment the
proceeding shall require secrecy, and may pronounce judgment in secret session for a contempt which
took place in secret session.
The warrant of arrest, as to which a question was raised, appears as follows in
the decision:
United States of America—
To the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate of the United States, Robert Beale:
Wliereas John Nugent, having been summoned, and having appeared at the bar of the Senate, and
having been sworn as a witness, he answered the following interrogatories:
1. Have you any connection with or agency for the proprietor of the newspaper published in the
city of New York, and called the New York Herald? If yea, state what is that connection or agency.
2. Do you know that an instrument purporting to be a copy of the treaty between the United States
of America and the Mexican Republic, with the amendments made by the Senate thereto, and the
proceedings of the Senate thereon, was published in that newspaper? Declare.
3. Do you know by whom the copy of the instrument, with the amendments thereto and proceedings
thereon in the last preceding interrogatory specified, was furnished to the editor or publishers, or
any agent of the editor or publishers of the said newspaper called the New York Herald? If yea, declare
and specify such person or persons.
4. Did you copy the parts purporting to be amendments of the treaty yourself for the purpose of
sending them to the editor of the New York Herald, or for any other purpose? If you answer in the negative,
then say if you know by whom they were copied.
5. Where, at what place or house, and at what time, were the said amendmentsof the treaty copied?
And having refused to answer the following interrogatories:
6. \Vhere, in what place or what house, and at what time, did you first receive a printed copy of
the confidential document containing the treaty, the President’s message, and also the other confidential
documents printed in the Herald?
7. In answer to the third interrogatory, you have stated that you furnished the papers therein
referred to, to the editor of the New York Herald. State from whom you received the said treaty with
Mexico, with the amendments and the said portion of the proceedings of the Senate.
8. In your answer to the fourth interrogatory, you state that the amendments there referred to were
communicated to the Herald in your handwriting. Did you copy the same, and from whom did you
procure the original from which you copied the same?
9. You say in answer to the last question that you decline to answer the same, because you can not
answer it with accuracy. State why you can not answer it with accuracy. Is it because you do not
recollect the facts inquired of?
10. What portion of the facts do you not recollect with accuracy; is it as to the person from whom
you obtained the papers, or either of them referred to?
11. State from whom you received the treaty.
12. State from whom you received the documents.
13. State from whom you received the proceedings of the Senate heretofore inquired of.
14. Was the copy of the treaty you forwarded to the Herald a printed copy?
has, by so refusing, committed a contempt against the Senate; and has, by the Senate, been
ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms, there to remain until the further order of the Senate.
5995—VOL 2—07 71

And here is the Court Affirming their right, a unanimous decision.

These are, therefore, to authorize and require you, and you are hereby authorized and required to
take into your custody the body of the said John Nugent, and him safely keep until he answers the said
interrogatories, or until the further order of tlie Senate of the United States in this behalf, and for so
doing this shall be your sufficient warrant.
Given under my hand this thirty-first day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and forty-eight.
G. M. Dallas,
Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate.
Attest:
AsBURY Dickens,
Secretary of the Senate of the United States.
The opinion of Judge Cranch, which was supported by numerous citations and
discussions of authorities, especially English, lays down the following principles:
The jurisdiction of the Senate in cases of contempt of its authority depends upon the same grounds
and reasons upon which the acknowledged jurisdiction of other judicial tribunals rests, to wit, the necessity
of such a jurisdiction to enable the Senate to exercise its high constitutional functions—a necessity
at least equal to that which supports the like jurisdiction which has been exercised by all judicial tribunals
and legislative assemblies in this country from its first settlement, and in England from time
immemorial. That the Senate of the United States may punish contempts of its authority seemed to
be admitted by the prisoner’s counsel, provided it be in a case within their cognizance and jurisdiction;
but whether admitted or not, such is the law as laid down by the Supreme Court of the United
States in Anderson v. Dunn, 6 \Vheat., 224, and in Kearney’s Case, 7 Wheat., 41. ******* These cases [cited] and authorities, we think, show conclusively that the Senate of the United
States has power to punish for contempts of its authority in cases of which it has jurisdiction; that every
court, including the Senate and House of Representatives, is the sole judge of its own contempts, and that
in case of the commitment for contempt in such a case no other court can have a right to inquire directly
into the correctness or propriety of the commitment, or to discharge the prisoner on habeas corpus, and
that the warrant of commitment need not set forth the particular facts which constitute the alleged
contempt.
There were many cases cited in the argument to show that when the question of privilege or contempt
came incidentally before the court, the court could and must dicide it; but those cases have no
bearing upon this, which is a case of habeas corpus, where it is admitted on all hands that the question of
contempt is brought directly before the court.
But if, upon this point, it should be thought that the majority of the judges of this court have (as it
is suggested) stated the principle too broadly in respect to the conclusive effect of a judgment of contempt
and if it should be deemed necessary that it should appear in the return of the hapeas corpus that at the
time of the supposed contempt the Senate were acting in a matter of which they had jurisdiction—we all
think it does sufficiently appear in the return that the Senate were, at that time, engaged in a matter
within their jurisdiction, to wit, an inquiry whether any person, and who, had violated the rule of the
Senate which requires that all treaties laid before them should be kept secret until the Senate should take
off the injunction of secrecy. This appears by the interrogatories propounded to the witness (the prisoner),
as stated in the return, and by the recital, in part, of the answers of the witness to a part of those
interrogatories.
But it has been contended also in argument that the power of the Senate to punish for contempts is
confined to their authority over their own members.
It is true that by the Constitution, Article I, section 6, “each House may determine the rules of its
proceeding, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a
member. But it says nothing of contempts. These were left to the operation of the common-law principle
that every court has a right to protect itself from insult and contempt, without which right of selfprotection
they could not discharge their high and important duties. It is not at all probable that the
framers of the Constitution, by giving an express power to the Senate to punish its members for disorderly
behavior, and even to expel a member, intended to deprive the Senate of that protection from insult,
which they knew very well belonged to and was enjoyed by both Houses of Parliament and the legis

laturcs of ( he former colonies and no%v States of tliis Union. The provision of the Constitution may have
been intended to remove a doiilit, whether a memljer of the Senate, appointed by and responsible to a
State legislature, could be guilty of a contempt to a body of which he himself was a member; or it may
have been intended to apply only to such disorderly behavior as did not amount to a contempt of the
House; or to remove a doubt whether the Senate had power to expel a member. 13ut whatever may
have been the intention we think the provision does not justify an inference that their power to punish
for contempts can be executed only upon members of the Senate.
It was also contended in argument that although the Senate might hold secret sessions, they could
not, in secret session, punish a man for contempt. The court, however, can not perceive any reason why
the Senate should not have the same power of punishing contempts in secret as in open session. In the
early years of this Government the sessions of the Senate were always secret.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, section 5, requires that “each House shall keep
a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their
judgment require secrecy.” The journal can not be kept secret unless the proceedings themselves be
kept secret. Hence, each House has a right to hold secret sessions whenever in its judgment the proceedings
shall require secrecy. The necessity of the power to hold secret sessions, especially of the Senate,
is so obvious that no argument in its favor is required by the court.
The Senate, besides being a branch of the Legislature, is the executive council of the President, and
stands in intimate commimion with him in regard to all our foreign diplomatic relations. Nothing, therefore,
can be more proper than that all executive sessions of the Senate, and all confidential communications
relating to treaties should be with closed doors and under seal of secrecy. Hence the standing rule of
the Senate (No. 38) requires that all confidential communications made by the President of the United
States to the Senate shall be, by the members thereof, kept secret; and all treaties which may be laid
before the Senate shall also be kept secret until the Senate shall, by their resolution, take off the injunction
of secrecy. And by the standing rule of the Senate (No. 39), “All information or remarks touching
or concerning the character and qualifications of any person nominated by the President to office shall be
kept secret.” By the fortieth rule of the Senate, “WTien acting on confidential or executive business,
the Senate shall be cleared of all persons, except the Secretary, the principal or executive clerk, the
Sergeant-at-Arnis, and Doorkeeper and Assistant Doorkeeper.” By the forty-first nile of the Senate,
“The legislative proceedings, the executive proceedings, and the confidential legislative proceedings
of the Senate shall be kept in separate and distinct books.”
These rules were established under the power given to the Senate by the Constitution of the United
States, Article I, section 5, “To determine the rules of its proceedings,” and are, therefore, until repealed,
as obligatory as if they had been inserted in the Constitution itself; so that it is not only the privilege, but
the duty of the Senate to hold its executive sessions in secret. No odium, therefore, can attach to the
Senate from the circumstance that the judgment for contempt was pronounced in secret session, upon a
transaction which took place in secret session. It could not have been done otherwise. The offense
must be punished in secret session or go unpunished; leaving the Senate exposed to all sorts of insults in
the discharge of their solemn constitutional duties.
After an anxious and careful consideration of the whole case, the court is unanimously of opinion
that the Senate of the United States has power, when acting in a case within its jurisdiction, to punish
all contempts of its authority, and that the prisoner, having been committed by the Senate for such a
contempt, and being still held and detained for that cause by their officer, this court has, upon the habeas
corpus, no jurisdiction to inquire further into the cause of commitment and must remand the prisoner.’
Prisoner remanded.
‘ In 1871 (First session Forty-second Congress), the Senate arrested Z. L. White and H. J. Ramsdel
for the publication of the treaty of Washington, and prolonged proceedings arose from their contumacy

And don’t forget...there were no notes, tapes, videos of Clinton’s interview and she was not under oath.

I think they call that....”let’s do lunch”.

Or a job interview

Conspiracy to commit sedition: 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy.

Up to 20 years in a federal prison.