Jump to content

January 6th Committee Broadcast


StringJunky
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, uncool said:

Congres has the inherent power to hold people in contempt, and can do so without involving the executive branch whatsoever, and this can include fining or imprisoning the accused contemnor for the length of that session of Congress. And this can be for either a coercive purpose - trying to force the accused contemnor to do something - or a punitive one - punishing them for failing to do so.

But congress does NOT have an enforcement arm. There is no sheriff or constable of the congress, for example.

So, they can “hold someone in contempt” but the actual “holding” part gets rather tricky. It’s more of a polite request akin to a “sternly worded letter.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, iNow said:

But congress does NOT have an enforcement arm. There is no sheriff or constable of the congress, for example.

So, they can “hold someone in contempt” but the actual “holding” part gets rather tricky. It’s more of a polite request akin to a “sternly worded letter.”

They do have a Sergeant at Arms.

They can arrest and hold people for a time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_Senate

Edited by Endy0816
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, uncool said:

As an explanation of what is likely to happen, I think this is correct; as an explanation of what can happen, I think this is incorrect.

Congres has the inherent power to hold people in contempt, and can do so without involving the executive branch whatsoever, and this can include fining or imprisoning the accused contemnor for the length of that session of Congress. And this can be for either a coercive purpose - trying to force the accused contemnor to do something - or a punitive one - punishing them for failing to do so.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

With that said, it apparently hasn't happened since 1935, and was rare before then as well.

Finding someone in contempt is not the same thing as bringing criminal charges for the acts being brought to light, which was the context of the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, my understanding of the SAA is that it's about building security and protocol.  When they say "violate Senate rules" they mean what you do in the chambers, being disorderly, yelling, channeling Al Pacino in And Justice for All, that kind of thing.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Yeah, my understanding of the SAA is that it's about building security and protocol.  When they say "violate Senate rules" they mean what you do in the chambers, being disorderly, yelling, channeling Al Pacino in And Justice for All, that kind of thing.  

 

They do that too but yeah they can go out and arrest as well.

Quote

In the Air Mail Scandal of 1934 William MacCracken, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was sentenced to ten days of detention for destroying evidence under subpoena. MacCracken appealed his sentence to the Supreme Court in Jurney v. MacCracken. After losing his case he surrendered to Chelsey Jurney, Senate sargeant at arms, who detained him in a room at the Willard Hotel.

 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Understood, and courts have affirmed their authority on paper, but in practice it’s far more unlikely they’d be involved (it’s a small force that’s rarely ever activated): https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

Yeah would cause issues  with Seperation of Powers if we saw them used more often, but they could be called to haul people in necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2022 at 6:05 AM, swansont said:

Finding someone in contempt is not the same thing as bringing criminal charges for the acts being brought to light, which was the context of the discussion.

While they are not the same, part of my point with the link is that Congress's power is not limited to finding someone in contempt, but may include the ability to prosecute those charges itself. The link I provided gives examples of both houses of Congress themself trying cases where someone was accused of attempting to bribe a member. From the link: "Ultimately, Mr. Anderson was found in contempt of Congress and was ordered to be reprimanded by the Speaker for the “outrage he committed” and discharged into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. Anderson subsequently filed suit against Mr. Thomas Dunn, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House, alleging assault, battery, and false imprisonment. [...] The Anderson decision [by the Supreme Court] indicates that Congress’s contempt power is centered on those actions committed in its presence that obstruct its deliberative proceedings. "

Unless you are making a distinction between "bringing criminal charges" and imprisoning someone for contempt, I don't see how the context changes my point - not that this is likely to happen, but that Congress may have the power to do the latter.

Edited by uncool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, uncool said:

Unless you are making a distinction between "bringing criminal charges" and imprisoning someone for contempt

I believe that distinction is both relevant and necessary since the original question was whether congress could bring charges and enforce jail time against January 6 insurrectionists... unless you're suggesting those who stormed the capitol are being held in contempt for their treason?

On 6/17/2022 at 9:22 AM, MigL said:

Can criminal charges be be brought at a Congressional Hearing, and associated jail time ( or execution for treason ) ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

I believe that distinction is both relevant and necessary since the original question was whether congress could bring charges and enforce jail time against January 6 insurrectionists... unless you're suggesting those who stormed the capitol are being held in contempt for their treason?

 

I read the question as a general question of whether Congress has any power to bring charges and punish under its own authority. But even with the interpretation of charges being specifically about the Jan 6 insurrection, I think a case could be made for Congress having the power to punish the insurrectionists itself. Not that that is what is happening, or even that it is likely to happen, but that that is within its power.

Edited by uncool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The committee was not scheduled to meet again until July, but it seems they’ve obtained some sort of new evidence and rather abruptly have scheduled a new previously unscheduled hearing for tomorrow (Tuesday)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

The committee was not scheduled to meet again until July, but it seems they’ve obtained some sort of new evidence and rather abruptly have scheduled a new previously unscheduled hearing for tomorrow (Tuesday)

Striking whilst the iron's hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throwing lunch against the wall?

Attacking security staff and attempting to take the wheel of a limo to drive yourself to the riot?

Suggesting turning off the magnetometer and letting people with guns join the crowd in order to maximize its size and make it more like your own personal coup army?

And the most damning quote, imo: You know, I don’t even care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me.

 

Very credible portrayal of Trump.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Can the Justice Department prosecute him? Is a president not equal under the law?

Surely now that he's no longer the president there can no longer be any overwhelming national interest argument to limit them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Surely now that he's no longer the president there can no longer be any overwhelming national interest argument to limit them.

'Surely' is not a word we can confidently use when talking about US law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think they would be best to have a 99,9% slam dunk case, but if it's 90+ it's probably bad precedent if they don't follow through.

I haven't been watching. I kind of hoped Trump would simply go away. It might be better if he just did.

Can he plea bargain an agreement to STFU?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

What do we think of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony today?

It is really just the icing on the cake. The good thing about the hearings is that they took a lot of effort to remove any potential ambiguity regarding the attempts of Trump and his inner circle to overthrow the election. Those who didn't care won't likely be swayed, those few who try to find the most accommodating interpretation (e.g. that these were only loud musings) basically have no other option than to acknowledge that, if they were arguing in good faith to begin with.

The issue is that even if Trump gets prosecuted, there are more folks than before who see what he has been doing as a template. And if those folks are not as grossly incompetent, it does not bode well for American democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

What do we think of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony today?

Destroying records of meetings with congressmen, conspiring to lynch the VP, discussing fake elector plans as early as Thanksgiving, co-conspirators requesting pardons, lots of evidence of corruption and sedition. The big question is why bring her in early in a special testimony? Is DOJ going to be making an announcement within the week, and the 1/6 committee wanted us to hear Ms Hutchinson's testimony before that? Could it have something to do with seizing John Eastman's phone last week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

why bring her in early in a special testimony? Is DOJ going to be making an announcement within the week, and the 1/6 committee wanted us to hear Ms Hutchinson's testimony before that? Could it have something to do with seizing John Eastman's phone last week?

Find out next time on… Americas Got Treason!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I also wondered, as Phi did, if bringing in Cassidy was setting up some action by Garland.   She had not only damning testimony but looks like she wandered off the set of The West Wing, yet not at all trying to put on a show or dramatize.   And the allusion to attempts at witness tampering before her deposition - "they reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts..." - adds to her power as a sympathetic figure standing up to intimidation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.