Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This is how the US Senate used to treat "Leaks" of Classified and Sensitive Material
self | 12/06/17 | self

Posted on 12/06/2017 2:14:17 PM PST by eyeamok

§ 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


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: contempt; spying; vanity
They didn't screw around when they wanted answers before.

here is one link, but there are many others to the info https://archive.org/details/hindsprecedentso02hind

1 posted on 12/06/2017 2:14:17 PM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

unreadable without paragraph breaks. Please fix. thank you


2 posted on 12/06/2017 2:20:25 PM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PIF
+1

Shouldn't have to mention it, frankly.

3 posted on 12/06/2017 2:23:00 PM PST by OKSooner (Be careful, there are many pitfalls on the long and winding road of life! - POTUS Donald J. Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Oh my eyes... my EYES!!!


4 posted on 12/06/2017 2:26:11 PM PST by Principled (OMG I'm so tired of all this winning...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

He was a Dem. color me shocked.

L


5 posted on 12/06/2017 2:29:35 PM PST by Lurker (President Trump isn't our last chance. President Trump is THEIR last chance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Formatting is your friend.


6 posted on 12/06/2017 2:30:12 PM PST by ALASKA (Watching a coup..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

§ 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


7 posted on 12/06/2017 2:35:08 PM PST by eyeamok (Tolerance: The virtue of having a belief in Nothing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

The Congress is reliant on the Executive to enforce its will.

The US Marshals or FBI could be ordered by Congress to detain members of the US Marshals Service or the FBI, but I’m not so sure that would be effective.

Trump needs to build a national consensus to flush the toilet known as the FBI. Cut them in half, at least.

Send in a fixer and gitter done.


8 posted on 12/06/2017 2:39:04 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Good summary: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-newspaper-leak-scandal-that-rocked-washington-in-1848


9 posted on 12/06/2017 2:46:56 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
It would be a mockery to shoot treasonous leaks with a firing squad.


10 posted on 12/06/2017 2:56:32 PM PST by C210N (It is easier to fool the people than convince them that they have been fooled)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
Mariner said: "The Congress is reliant on the Executive to enforce its will."

That would seem to be true if the will of Congress is expressed through legislation passed by both houses and signed by the President.

However, the language of the order posted above seems to suggest that the powers of the Senate may be a little broader than one might think.

Here's the relevant quote: "... 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."

I don't see why the Senate could not identify a particular person as in contempt and order them detained indefinitely by their Sergeant-at-Arms. If any other law enforcement official interfered, then the Supreme Court could be called upon to decide whether such interference was Constitutional and, if not, order such interference to cease.

I would never challenge the authority of a judge in his own courtroom nor would I challenge the authority of the Senate to carry out its duties. One who thumbs his nose at the Constitution may find that the document does provide for its own defense.

11 posted on 12/06/2017 3:14:03 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

What are there in the entire Sargent at Arms force?

Maybe six officers and a Chief?

Of course there are dozens of door keepers and greeters.

And none of them so overnight travel for business. I doubt any of them carries a firearm or handcuffs.


12 posted on 12/06/2017 3:22:22 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

The problem with the Congress is that they have delegated all authority to independent agents, are too reliant on a staff with their own agenda toward crafting policy, and wish to live the celebrity lifestyle without soiling their hands by the work they were hired to do.


13 posted on 12/06/2017 3:35:46 PM PST by Ozark Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
"I doubt any of them carries a firearm or handcuffs."

I don't know the specifics, but I doubt that a person who rushes into the Capitol Building waving a knife is going to get very far before being met by somebody with a firearm and handcuffs.

It actually doesn't require a gun or handcuffs to arrest most people. Most recognize proper authority and choose not to compound any existing problem with resisting arrest. If necessary to effect an arrest, I think the Senate has the resources to provide arms to the Sergeant-at-Arms.

If you read the linked article describing the incident which prompted the quoted order, you will learn that the journalist was not released until the Senate relented due to ill health of the subject.

Our Founders gave us a system with checks-and-balances but they did not create toothless branches of government.

14 posted on 12/06/2017 3:37:37 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

Then Congress needs to fund its own enforcement division under the SAA. Like the US Marshals Service.

But right now they rely on the Capitol Police for any real security and they respond to Executive authority.


15 posted on 12/06/2017 3:54:06 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
"Maybe six officers and a Chief?"

I wasn't able to track down a number, but the Sergeant-at-Arms has many duties associated with keeping the Senate running. These extend to supplying computer, graphic, and video services to even negotiating leases for the offices of Senators back in their home states, in addition to guarding the Senate sessions and compelling the attendance of missing Senators.

Imagine the Sergeant-at-Arms calling Pinkerton to contract with them to arrest the Director of the FBI. Is the Director going to engage in a shoot-out? Will other FBI agents take up arms to stop the Senate from effecting an arrest?

Perhaps you lived through the Watergate era? The President of the United States chose not to defy the Supreme Court's decision that the President must turn over the tapes of White House conversations. (Nixon did, of course, commit obstruction by erasing some first.)

16 posted on 12/06/2017 3:55:15 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

“Imagine the Sergeant-at-Arms calling Pinkerton to contract with them to arrest the Director of the FBI.”

Likely have to deputize them...but

That would work. No doubt.

They do have a holding cell on premise.

Pinkerton would certainly demand a fat check for that one.


17 posted on 12/06/2017 3:59:35 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

I have referred to congress as balless and eunuchs and I stand by that characterization.


18 posted on 12/06/2017 4:01:44 PM PST by morphing libertarian (Build Kate's Wall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell; Mariner
Eric Holder's contempt had no physical consequence, which effectively answers the question whether Congress indeed has the will to punish. If it did, it certainly has the means to hire and equip sufficient assistants for the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest and detain at its discretion; then if the other Branches contested such an action it would make a fine spectacle, by way of constitutional crisis. Aren't we long overdue?

Congress, being in its essence a political body, makes its decisions accordingly. The only realistic way to proceed would be to snatch the detainee first, and then face down challenges--and make its point--while possessing the corpus.

19 posted on 12/06/2017 4:11:15 PM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God IS, and (2) God IS GOOD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson