J6 Committiee - An Imperial Power Unto Themselves

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Beats me why a committee with Schiff on it would call themselves an Intelligence Committee.

Stop being polite with this idiot.
Tell him to go Fug himself.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Congress's 1/6 Committee Claims Absolute Power as it Investigates Citizens With No Judicial Limits


In its ongoing attempt to investigate and gather information about private U.S. citizens, the Congressional 1/6 Committee is claiming virtually absolute powers that not even the FBI or other law enforcement agencies enjoy. Indeed, lawyers for the committee have been explicitly arguing that nothing proscribes or limits their authority to obtain data regarding whichever citizens they target and, even more radically, that the checks imposed on the FBI (such as the requirement to obtain judicial authorization for secret subpoenas) do not apply to the committee.

As we have previously reported and as civil liberties groups have warned, there are serious constitutional doubts about the existence of the committee itself. Under the Constitution and McCarthy-era Supreme Court cases interpreting it, the power to investigate crimes lies with the executive branch, supervised by the judiciary, and not with Congress. Congress does have the power to conduct investigations, but that power is limited to two narrow categories: 1) when doing so is designed to assist in its law-making duties (e.g., directing executives of oil companies to testify when considering new environmental laws) and 2) in order to exert oversight over the executive branch.

What Congress is barred from doing, as two McCarthy-era Supreme Court cases ruled, is exactly what the 1/6 committee is now doing: conducting a separate, parallel criminal investigation in order to uncover political crimes committed by private citizens. Such powers are dangerous precisely because Congress’s investigative powers are not subject to the same safeguards as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. And just as was true of the 1950s House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) that prompted those Supreme Court rulings, the 1/6 committee is not confining its invasive investigative activities to executive branch officials or even citizens who engaged in violence or other illegality on January 6, but instead is investigating anyone and everyone who exercised their Constitutional rights to express views about and organize protests over their belief that the 2020 presidential election contained fraud. Indeed, the committee's initial targets appear to be taken from the list of those who applied for protest permits in Washington: a perfectly legal, indeed constitutionally protected, act.

This abuse of power is not merely abstract. The Congressional 1/6 Committee has been secretly obtaining private information about American citizens en masse: telephone records, email logs, internet and browsing history, and banking transactions. And it has done so without any limitations or safeguards: no judicial oversight, no need for warrants, no legal limitations of any kind.

Indeed, the committee has been purposely attempting to prevent citizens who are the targets of their investigative orders to have any opportunity to contest the legality of this behavior in court. As we reported in October, the committee sent dozens if not hundreds of subpoenas to telecom companies demanding a wide range of email and other internet records, and — without any legal basis — requested that those companies not only turn over those documents but refrain from notifying their own customers of the request. If the companies were unwilling to comply with this "request,” then the committee requested that they either contact the committee directly or just disregard the request — in other words, the last thing they wanted was to enable one of their targets to learn that they were being investigated because that would enable them to seek a judicial ruling about the legality of the committee's actions.


But now the committee is escalating its aggressive investigative actions. They have begun sending subpoenas to private banks, demanding the banking records of private citizens, and doing so such that either the person never finds out or finds out too late to obtain a judicial order about the legality of the committee's behavior. In one case, they targeted JP Morgan with these subpoenas while knowing that that bank is being represented by former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Lynch — unsurprisingly — then directed her client not to accommodate any requests from its own customers to ensure they can seek judicial review.

On November 22, the 1/6 Committee served a subpoena on Taylor Budowich — a former spokesman for the Trump campaign who never worked for the U.S. Government — that requested a wide range of documents as well as his deposition testimony. On December 14, Budowich voluntarily complied by handing over a large amount of his personal records, and then, on December 22, he flew to Washington at his own expense and submitted to questioning. There is no suggestion that Budowich was engaged in any violence or other illegal acts at the Capitol on January 6. Their only interest in this private citizen is his connection to the Trump campaign and his stated view that he believed the 2020 election was marred by fraud.
 
Last edited:

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The Supreme Court just gave them the power over the President to search his papers, so if the Supreme Court screwed over the president what makes anyone think they cannot screw over anyone. The Constitution is getting ripped to pieces, piece by piece.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
The Supreme Court just gave them the power over the President to search his papers, so if the Supreme Court screwed over the president what makes anyone think they cannot screw over anyone. The Constitution is getting ripped to pieces, piece by piece.
I think we can all agree, the Sups normally rule on narrowly focused questions and then only if all the prerequisite steps are made. They ruled that documents being held by the National Archives can be turned over to the Congress.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Congress's 1/6 Committee Claims Absolute Power as it Investigates Citizens With No Judicial Limits


In its ongoing attempt to investigate and gather information about private U.S. citizens, the Congressional 1/6 Committee is claiming virtually absolute powers that not even the FBI or other law enforcement agencies enjoy. Indeed, lawyers for the committee have been explicitly arguing that nothing proscribes or limits their authority to obtain data regarding whichever citizens they target and, even more radically, that the checks imposed on the FBI (such as the requirement to obtain judicial authorization for secret subpoenas) do not apply to the committee.

As we have previously reported and as civil liberties groups have warned, there are serious constitutional doubts about the existence of the committee itself. Under the Constitution and McCarthy-era Supreme Court cases interpreting it, the power to investigate crimes lies with the executive branch, supervised by the judiciary, and not with Congress. Congress does have the power to conduct investigations, but that power is limited to two narrow categories: 1) when doing so is designed to assist in its law-making duties (e.g., directing executives of oil companies to testify when considering new environmental laws) and 2) in order to exert oversight over the executive branch.

What Congress is barred from doing, as two McCarthy-era Supreme Court cases ruled, is exactly what the 1/6 committee is now doing: conducting a separate, parallel criminal investigation in order to uncover political crimes committed by private citizens. Such powers are dangerous precisely because Congress’s investigative powers are not subject to the same safeguards as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. And just as was true of the 1950s House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) that prompted those Supreme Court rulings, the 1/6 committee is not confining its invasive investigative activities to executive branch officials or even citizens who engaged in violence or other illegality on January 6, but instead is investigating anyone and everyone who exercised their Constitutional rights to express views about and organize protests over their belief that the 2020 presidential election contained fraud. Indeed, the committee's initial targets appear to be taken from the list of those who applied for protest permits in Washington: a perfectly legal, indeed constitutionally protected, act.

This abuse of power is not merely abstract. The Congressional 1/6 Committee has been secretly obtaining private information about American citizens en masse: telephone records, email logs, internet and browsing history, and banking transactions. And it has done so without any limitations or safeguards: no judicial oversight, no need for warrants, no legal limitations of any kind.

Indeed, the committee has been purposely attempting to prevent citizens who are the targets of their investigative orders to have any opportunity to contest the legality of this behavior in court. As we reported in October, the committee sent dozens if not hundreds of subpoenas to telecom companies demanding a wide range of email and other internet records, and — without any legal basis — requested that those companies not only turn over those documents but refrain from notifying their own customers of the request. If the companies were unwilling to comply with this "request,” then the committee requested that they either contact the committee directly or just disregard the request — in other words, the last thing they wanted was to enable one of their targets to learn that they were being investigated because that would enable them to seek a judicial ruling about the legality of the committee's actions.


But now the committee is escalating its aggressive investigative actions. They have begun sending subpoenas to private banks, demanding the banking records of private citizens, and doing so such that either the person never finds out or finds out too late to obtain a judicial order about the legality of the committee's behavior. In one case, they targeted JP Morgan with these subpoenas while knowing that that bank is being represented by former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Lynch — unsurprisingly — then directed her client not to accommodate any requests from its own customers to ensure they can seek judicial review.

On November 22, the 1/6 Committee served a subpoena on Taylor Budowich — a former spokesman for the Trump campaign who never worked for the U.S. Government — that requested a wide range of documents as well as his deposition testimony. On December 14, Budowich voluntarily complied by handing over a large amount of his personal records, and then, on December 22, he flew to Washington at his own expense and submitted to questioning. There is no suggestion that Budowich was engaged in any violence or other illegal acts at the Capitol on January 6. Their only interest in this private citizen is his connection to the Trump campaign and his stated view that he believed the 2020 election was marred by fraud.
Hopefully someone with standing will sue in federal court.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

DOJ went into overdrive to indict Bannon…







Prosecutors appear to have obtained court orders to access phone and email records of a prominent attorney for Steve Bannon, who is fighting criminal charges for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee.

In a court filing Friday, Bannon’s legal team revealed that last month, prosecutors provided more than 790 documents that “reflected efforts by the Government to obtain telephone records and email records from the personal and professional accounts of defense counsel, Robert J. Costello.”
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member

DOJ went into overdrive to indict Bannon…







Prosecutors appear to have obtained court orders to access phone and email records of a prominent attorney for Steve Bannon, who is fighting criminal charges for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee.

In a court filing Friday, Bannon’s legal team revealed that last month, prosecutors provided more than 790 documents that “reflected efforts by the Government to obtain telephone records and email records from the personal and professional accounts of defense counsel, Robert J. Costello.”


What ever happened to the Attorney Client privilege?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Corruption in Bannon Criminal Case


Spying on his lawyer. Hiding discovery of political motivation. Lying to grand juries. Mis-instructing grand jurors on the law. Well-detailed in this motion to compel Bannon brought. Highlighted, as customary.





The Government has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, all elements of the offenses charged. A threshold issue involves whether the subpoena seeking testimony and documents was valid and issued pursuant to lawful authority. The Supreme Court has held, in reversing a 2 U.S.C. § 192 conviction, that “Courts administering the criminal law cannot apply sanctions for violation of the mandate of an agency – here, the Subcommittee – unless that agency’s authority is clear and has been conferred in accordance with law.” Gojack v. United States, 384 U.S. 702, 714 (1966). The Government must prove that Congress had the constitutional power to investigate the matter at issue and make the specific inquiry. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). The Government must also prove that the Select Committee was authorized to conduct the specific investigation, and that the actions of the Select Committee were in accordance with the authority granted, and the authorized procedures. United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 42-43 (1953).

The Supreme Court has held that a defendant prosecuted under 2 U.S.C. § 192 is entitled to “every safeguard which the law accords in all other federal criminal cases.” Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 755 (1962). Any citizen facing criminal charges is entitled to due process of law. U.S. Const. Amend. V. Consistent with that constitutional guarantee, if the government officials and employees involved in this matter did not follow the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, or the rules applicable to the Select Committee, pertaining to the September 23, 2021, subpoena, then there can be no conviction for a violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192. Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1963) (Section 192 conviction reversed where committee did not follow rules regarding executive session); see also Gojack, supra, 384 U.S. at 716 (“[t]he legislative history of § 192 makes plain that a clear chain of authority from the House to the questioning body is an essential element of the offense”); see generally Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84, 85- 90 (1949) (perjury conviction reversed where committee did not follow rules regarding quorum). The Government will also have the burden of proving that the questions or documents sought were pertinent to the authorized inquiry. Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959)

Significantly, the Government must prove that Mr. Bannon acted with criminal intent. There is no violation of the statute unless a person “willfully makes default.” 2 U.S.C. § 192. Given the plain language of the statute, and controlling Supreme Court precedent, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bannon acted “willfully” to violate the statute that prohibits Contempt of Congress. Specifically, the Government must prove that Mr. Bannon knew that his conduct constituted “default,” knew that his conduct was unlawful, and intended to do something that the law forbids. See Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 191-192 (1998); Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 137 (1994); United States v. Zeese, 437 F. Supp. 3d 86, 95 (D.D.C. 2020).
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Marco Rubio says January 6 rioters should be 'prosecuted' but the committee is a 'partisan scam' trying to 'harass' Republicans


Rubio added that those who broke the law on January 6 should be prosecuted, but he also blasted the January 6 committee's investigation into the riot. To date, 768 people have been charged in the Capitol insurrection, and 178 rioters have pleaded guilty. Also, a number of former White House aides have cooperated with the panel, including top advisors to former VP Mike Pence.

"If you entered the Capitol and you committed acts of violence and you were there to hurt people, you should be prosecuted," Rubio said. "But the January 6th commission is not the place to do this. That's what prosecutors are supposed to do. This commission is a partisan scam."

The select committee is trying to "embarrass and smear and harass as many Republicans as they can get their hands on," the Florida Republican added.

Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee chairwoman said the January 6 committee was persecuting "ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse."
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
🔥 In what SHOULD have the big story yesterday, the House’s January 6 investigators filed a motion in one of the lawsuits that finally laid out at least part of their awesome theory. The House’s lawyers claimed that President Trump “engaged in criminal conspiracy” with unnamed allies to attack the Capitol and “overturn” the election.

To date, they’ve been very coy with their theory of criminal liability, even though many — including me — believed that they were working on just that objective. But John Eastman, a lawyer advising Trump at the time, invoked attorney-client privilege over some documents that the House wants. One of the ways the House’s lawyers responded was to invoke a doctrine that can defeat attorney-client privilege called the “crime-fraud exception.”

To get somebody’s privileged information using the “crime-fraud exception,” you have to show it is likely they used their attorney to commit a crime or fraud. So the committee has come up with some crimes and frauds to try to get at Trump’s attorney-client privileged information.

They named three crimes: Obstruction of a government process, defrauding the US, and, believe it or not, common-law fraud. All of these are described in the context of a conspiracy, which means the House has its baleful sights set on a bunch of other people, too. Maybe a whole lot of them. Specifically, the committee claimed it “has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

These three crimes may not be ALL the crimes that the House is cooking up. They are just ones it needs to beat Eastman’s invocation of attorney-client privilege. And, according to the House’s brief, it was the D.C. JUDGE who suggested that they consider using the crime-fraud exception. Very helpful.

This is a watershed or inflection point of some kind, because until now, the House investigators have diligently obscured all sign that they were considering ANY criminal conduct of any kind, because now that’s out, every other person who they want to depose has a perfectly valid Fifth Amendment defense. From this point, anyone contacted by the House should strongly consider these developments.



 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Jan. 6 Committee Claims Its ‘Digital Watergate’ Is Above The Law



Citing case law wherein the Supreme Court protected outside interference with the legislative process, the probe’s lawyers argued the legislative branch’s independence is absolute. The Jan. 6 Committee, however, is operating with no legitimate legislative purpose, lacks any minority-appointed lawmakers, and is operating without a ranking member. The only Republicans serving on Pelosi’s Select Committee are Reps. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., both of whom were hand-picked by the speaker. Pelosi notoriously barred GOP appointments from Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, blowing up her own committee. In Wyoming, the state party no longer recognizes Cheney as Republican. The Republican National Committee censured Cheney for her obsessive work on behalf of Pelosi. She laughed about her alienation from Republican voters earlier this week.

The Jan. 6 Committee’s claims to be above the law as it executes a “digital Watergate” demanding supporter data from the National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC) conjures memories of former President Richard Nixon’s insistence that “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

[clip]

In 2022, Democrats on the Jan. 6 Committee, who’ve admitted the partisan probe is all about the midterms, are seeking confidential strategic information from Republicans in the form of a subpoena issued under questionable authority. The subpoena targets Republican financial records housed with the database firm Salesforce, requiring the party to hand over detailed personal information about Republican supporters and their engagement with the party.

“What the Salesforce subpoena demands is for the company to hand over the ‘Holy Grail’ of the RNC’s internal digital playbook,” the NRSC wrote in an amicus brief to the RNC lawsuit, with millions spent to compile its treasure trove of data. The NRSC calls the Jan. 6 Committee’s operation a “digital-age Watergate.”

While the Jan. 6 Committee claimed in its opposition memo the subpoena is “narrowly tailored,” its compliance would require the Republican Party to reveal its digital strategy and identification of its supporters to ideological state actors running the partisan probe with an explicit vengeance. The committee has already selectively leaked private communications obtained through its subpoenas to smear dissidents to friendly media while manipulating other texts to promote a political narrative.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The 3 branches of the Government are alleged to be equal.
No other branch has absolute Power.
The Supreme Court proved the Executive branch had no such power when they allowed this corrupt committee to gain trumps private records.

I only wish that when the republicans take back the House and Senate in 2022 that they had the balls to shove these alleged powers the democrats claim to have right up their ass.
 

TPD

the poor dad
I just had a conversation on Friday with a local about these poor guys still in jail over the Jan 6th incident. He and I both were supposed to be in DC that day for the rally but at the last minute had something come up to prevent us from going. THANK GOD!
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
But there’s more. The Committee claims the Eastman emails, which the Judge ordered to be produced, include conversations between Eastman and Ginni Thomas — Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, who is a well-known conservative activist. The New York Times reported yesterday that “Jan. 6 Panel to Seek Interview With Ginni Thomas.”

This is dangerous ground. The Committee is heading toward a major Constitutional crisis, pitting the Democrat-controlled House against the Supreme Court, a separate and independent branch of government. In other words, they are going after Clarence Thomas, currently trying to skirt the Constitutional problems by first going after his wife. You can bet the House Dems will be arguing soon that Justice Thomas is conflicted from any case involving Trump, the elections, or January 6.

And, since Justice Thomas is the only one who can decide whether he should recuse, the only option left to House democrats is impeachment. If you think they won’t try it, I have some priced-to-move waterfront property in Central Florida for you.

The RNC — now fighting its own battle with the Committee to protect its donor list, which was subpoenaed from Salesforce.com a couple weeks ago — needs to WAKE UP. Mainstream Republicans have been very circumspect about January 6, as exemplified by Ted Cruz infamously calling the riot a “terrorist attack” for over a year until he was forced to apologize in January. It seems like they’d decided it was just an effort to get Trump and his supporters, and who cares about that?

But the January 6 investigation is the Democrats’ core strategy to win the 2022 elections and keep the House. You heard it here first. If Republicans don’t get in the fight soon, they are going to wake up inside a sack sinking into the east river.

And I have a funny feeling, call it a nagging suspicion, that if the dems do manage to keep the House, Covid will flare back up and our old friends the masks and the jabs will be shoved back in our faces. Quite literally, in the case of masks.

Shutting down the so-called January 6 Committee needs to be Republicans’ top priority.


 
Top