Devin Nunes Lobs Another Bomb Into Obamaville

If you listen to Rush Limbaugh – I personally do so 2-3 times a week, when my schedule permits – in today’s first hour you heard him give an update of what is going on with the case of General Mike Flynn. If you read the Campaign Update, you’d have read all about all of that stuff on Valentine’s day. Just sayin’.

Ok, in fairness to Rush, there has been one important event in the case that took place since February 14: On Friday, February 16, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an update to his December 12 order that Mueller turn over all relevant documents it had failed to turn over to the defense before Flynn entered his guilty plea for lying to the FBI on December 1. Friday’s updated order specifically demands that Mueller’s team of Clinton/Obama hacks turn over “any exculpatory evidence” to the Flynn team.

This updated order implies two things: 1) that Judge Sullivan believes Mueller still has not been forthcoming in response to his December 12 order, and 2) Judge Sullivan believes it is likely that “exculpatory evidence”, i.e., evidence of Flynn’s innocence on the charges, exists.

This lends even more credence to the speculation that former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe ordered FBI Super-duper Agent and full-time texter Peter Strzok to alter his 302 form related to his interview of Flynn last January 24. It is widely believed that the discovery of that suborning of fraud by McCabe by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is the reason why McCabe was “removed” from his office in the J. Edgar Hoover Building a few weeks back.

So it seems increasingly likely that General Flynn will soon have his guilty plea vacated and be in possession of a very strong cause of action against the United States government, a cause every patriotic American should hope he pursues with extreme vigor.

In case you missed it, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes sent a letter today to a bunch of current and former “high-level” officials in the executive branch of government. The letter contains 10 questions about the fake Trump Dossier, as follows:

1. When and how did you first become aware of any of the information contained in the Steele dossier? 2. In what form(s) was the information in the Steele dossier presented to you? By whom? (Please describe each instance) 3. Who did you share this information with? When? In what form? (Please describe each instance) 4. What officials actions did you take as a result of receiving the information contained in the Steele dossier? 5. Did you convene any meetings with the intelligence community and/or law enforcement communities as a result of the information contained in the Steele dossier? 6. When did you first learn or come to believe that the Steele dossier was funded by a Democrat-aligned entity? 7. When did you first learn or come to believe that the Steele dossier was funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and/or Hillary for America (Clinton campaign)? 8. When did you first become aware that the Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA order on Carter Page? 9. Was President Obama briefed on any information contained in the dossier prior to January 5, 2017? 10. Did you discuss the information contained in the Steele dossier with any reporters or other representatives of the media? If so, who and when?

Now, the copy of the letter that was made public has the names of the recipients redacted, but given the nature of those questions, it is obvious that most, if not all of the recipients were officials in the Obama Administration. And given everything else we have found out about the machinations going on at the upper levels of that corrupt administration during 2016 and January 2017, we can guess that the last names of some of the addressees are Comey, McCabe, Rice, Yates, Brennan, Clapper, Power, Ohr, Strzok, Page, Lynch and possibly even Biden and Obama.

In the letter, Nunes demands answers by March 2, and follows with “If you do not provide timely answers on a voluntary basis, the committee will initiate compulsory process.” Given the level of contempt that Obama officials have consistently shown for America’s government institutions, it is likely that most of the rumored 2 dozen recipients of the letter will simply ignore it.

The power of a congressional subpoena is not nearly as substantial as a court subpoena, and hey, being held in contempt of congress is nothing new for Obama toadies – just ask Eric Holder. If Attorney General Jeff Sessions will do his job, those court-issued subpoenas will be flying around soon enough, anyway.

In other news, Robert Mueller indicted another ham sandwich on another process charge today. The liberal narrative-floggers at Vox think it actually means something. They’re so cute.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

but it could be fun if CONGRESS actually exercised the Authority they have

“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 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.