In the war over documents between the House and Senate committees investigating the FBI and other intelligence abuses and the FBI/Department of Justice, you might wonder why Congress keeps whining. After all, they say “We asked for these documents a year ago and still don’t have them!” “Why weren’t these sections included in what we requested?” And so on.
You have probably heard that Congress has “oversight” powers over these executive departments and agencies. In a sense that’s true, although there was no Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1789. Indeed, there is no Department of Justice mentioned in the Constitution (and it didn’t appear until 1870—interestingly, recent scholarship suggests, not so much as to handle all the leftover Civil War cases but to streamline and reduce the size of government). The first Attorney General, Edmund Randolph, took office in September 1789 after Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 that created the Office of the Attorney General. It is tenuously through that Act that Congress maintains any control at all over the AG’s office, the staff of which is appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
But here is the kicker: neither the Constitution nor the Judiciary Act provided a means for Congress to actually enforce anything beyond funding and/or the impeachment process. Congress could subpoena a witness to appear. If said witness did not appear, an arrest citation could be put out. But the arrest would have to be carried out by the Sergeant at Arms, who is not a law enforcement official. He can arrest people in the gallery, but cannot go outside the confines of Congress to make arrests. If, say, Rod Rosenstein, an individual never went to the House, Congress could not “haul him in.”
So, say Congress subpoenas a witness to appear and orders his arrest for contempt if he appears and fails to answer questions, the contemnor could sue under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and seek a writ of habeas corpus, meaning an order to release the contemnor from custody (presumably the contemnor would be held at the Capitol). A judge would then decide the propriety of Congress’s contempt citation, but the Justice Department would not have to defend the congressional action.
This differs from contempt of court. If a judge made a finding of indirect criminal contempt and DOJ refused to prosecute, the court may appoint a special prosecutor under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a)(2).
This is one approach Congress has to compel an FBI official or DOJ official to hand over documents or comply with requests. Not impressed? I’m not surprised. Virtually, Congress has no ability whatsoever to force the Executive Branch—any part of it—to do anything except through the power of the purse.
That’s Congress’s second power. Congress has full authority over authorizing and appropriating money in the budget. The Department of Justice Budget for 2018 has been voted on and signed, and the leadership of the U.S. Senate indicated it will not undertake another budget this year, preferring to go with another continuing resolution. That would mean that the first time that this Congress can modify or reduce the DOJ/FBI budget will be when they next debate a continuing resolution in the fall. Prior to that, Congress has no—and I mean zero—ability to affect the DOJ or the FBI with its budgetary powers.
In other words, Congressman Devin Nunes and Senator Charles Grassley can “demand,” “request,” or “insist” all they want, and they can threaten to impeach, but barring a massive effort with solid majorities in both houses, Congress cannot make the DOJ do anything. And if you’re waiting on Congress to withhold money, this has occurred only a handful of times in history when Congress demanded reports—which were eventually forthcoming. But the scheduling of the budget and the likelihood of a continuing resolution this year means it would be mid- to late 2019 before any budgetary leverage could be brought on any executive agency.
Larry Schweikart is the co-author with Michael Allen of A Patriot’s History of the United States and with Joel Pollak of How Trump Won.
Bypass Tech Censorship!
Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!
WATCH: Tucker SLAMS Lindsey Graham For EB5 Visa Giveaway Scheme Amidst Coronavirus Epidemic
Graham wants to use the crisis to boost immigration visas.
Tucker Carlson took South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham to task in a segment on his show Thursday night, blasting the opportunistic Senator for seeking to insert an immigration visa giveaway into upcoming Coronavirus stimulus legislation.
Graham is attempting to enact a raise in the annual level of EB-5 visas. The controversial program allows wealthy foreigners to enter the United States on the basis of supposed investment they make into the economy.
Graham is lobbying President Trump to agree to a massive boost to the program-raising annual EB-5 visa levels from a current total of 10,000 to 75,000. Graham also seeks to lower the threshold of investment for an EB-5 from $900,000 to $450,000.
In a display of tone-deaf politics taken to a new level, the EB-5 program Graham seeks to expand is currently commonly used by wealthy Chinese citizens to purchase American residency and citizenship. Allowing a free path to residency for China’s richest multi-millionaires and billionaires almost certainly would provide the Chinese government a means of entryism into major American institutions and society, in an age where the American public is more distrustful and skeptical of Chinese influence than ever before.
Watch the segment here:
Graham has also gone on record advocating for a bailout of big businesses and private companies, while opposing direct basic income transfers to everyday working American families.
American citizenship is not a mere bauble to be offered for sale in a time of crisis, especially considering the EB-5’s dubious benefits on the American economy. The verification mechanisms for the visa recipients’ investments in American jobs are notoriously weak, to the extent that both major parties agreed to scale back the program last year.
America is a country, not merely an economy. It’s well past time Senator Graham gives up his constant attempt to retcon old globalist policies into President Donald Trump’s administration, especially in times of national emergency.
Trending on BLP
Dr. Anthony Fauci Plotted ‘Global Vaccine Action Plan’ with Bill Gates Before Pushing COVID Panic and Doubts About Hydroxychloroquine Treatments
News4 days ago
GLOBALISM: Bush Foundation Ships 2 Million Masks to China Despite Increasing Shortages in America
Culture3 days ago
Father Handcuffed, Arrested for Playing Tee Ball with Wife and Daughter in Public Park
News4 days ago
British Politicians Believe that the Wuhan Virus Pandemic Might Have Come from a Leak at a Chinese Laboratory
News2 days ago
FLASHBACK: Man Arrested at Bill Gates’ Estate for Allegedly Exchanging Child Porn
News3 days ago
Another Murder by a Somali Immigrant Leaves 7-Year-Old Girl Dead
News3 days ago
Chinese-State Made Puts Out Facebook Ads Scapegoating President Trump for the Wuhan Virus
News3 days ago
ACLU Helps Illegal Alien Child Molester and Immigrant Child Abuser Back Out on the Streets
Fake News Media4 days ago
President Trump Takes Down Chinese State Media Reporter: “Who Do You Work For, China?”