Jane Fonda referred by Congress to DOJ for treason

It’s up to the AG, and ultimately the Special Counsel, to decide if they want to do anything with it.

Did the AG and special counsel already do their own investigation?

They have been conducting their own investigation, but Jack Smith has definitely taken an interest in the committee’s findings.

Why didn’t Jack Smith find this out for himself?

The Congressional Committee is political theater. The professionals of the DOJ have investigated. Jane Fonda is not guilty of Treason

All politics is theater. The voters are the audience. In other news, water is wet and kittens are cute.

Is Jane Fonda guilty of Treason?

…asked and answered.


that is my point. Jane Fonda is not guilty of Treason. The DOJ knows that.

Saying “that is the point” when no point has been expressed does not magically cause a point to appear.

As debates go, this one lacks greatness. Discuss?

Yes I’m wrong. Discussing congressional oversight of the DOJ is a bad thing. i will shut up now

Your hypothetical has already put forth that she isn’t.

NO ONE here has stated that discussing congressional oversight of the DOJ is a bad thing. Is this what you really wanted to talk about?

Congress has certain powers over the DOJ, as with any executive agency. Budget, making certain positions subject to Senate confirmation, changing the laws they enforce, etc.

But, the head of the executive branch has the authority to direct the agency’s policies, or give orders to enforce or not enforce. Congress can’t impinge on those powers.

Congress could pass a law saying that a certain person is guilty of a crime, but that would not be enforceable because it’s unconstitutional.

Likewise, passing a new law defining what the targeted person clearly did do as a crime, and applying it retroactively would be unconstitutional.

As debates go, this one lacks debate.

As debates go, this one should go.

The DoJ may be ethically obligated if the evidence is strong, but they are not legally obligated to follow up on criminal referrals. That is necessary due to the principles of prosecutorial discretion and separation of powers. (Prosecutorial discretion is a strictly executive-branch power in our federal government.)

When Jane Fonda was arrested on drug smuggling charges in the '70s, it was said to be on Nixon’s orders, not Congress’s.

For a real life example, when members of Congress made a criminal referral regarding Chris Steele (author of the Steel dossier), it was reported as a “request”.

When Congress wants to direct an investigation, rather than simply recommend one, they must either appoint a special counsel (formerly independent counsel, examples include Mueller and Start) or perform the investigation themselves. Under no circumstance may Congress direct a criminal prosecution. Even with special counsel, Congress may only compel the production of a report; the decision to prosecute and the right to represent the government in a courtroom is strictly executive, and in that respect Congress is powerless.

However note that, at least in the past, the DoJ’s internal policy was to not investigate matters occuring before Congress unless Congress referred the matter. (This was something I believe former FBI director James Comey testified about years ago, regarding perjury before Congress as I recall.)


This type of bait and switch thread is pretty close to trolling. I will probably leave this mess closed.

I’ll review it further in a bit. But from the title and the OP it was obvious what was coming next.

Please refrain from any additional OPs like this.

It has been reviewed and this thread will remain closed.