Jan. 6th - COWARD WATCH

Dear BENNIE G. THOMPSON “Chairman” and LIZ CHENEY “Vice Chair”, along with, ZOE LOFGREN, ELAINE LURIA, ADAM SCHIFF, PETE AGUILAR, STEPHANIE MURPHY, JAMIE RASKIN, ADAM KINZINGER as “Rank & File Members” on the Select Committee Investigating the January 6^th “DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACK” on the United States Capitol;

I guess for the “Select Committee” another day older out-of-order, deeper in doo-doo some 387-days after the “Domestic Terrorist Attack” on the U.S Capitol and for real the “obstructionists” still remain on the loose, free-of-charge no bail some 212-days since your “Coward Committee” came to be. So here we go again, vroom-vroom, as not a day goes bye it seems wherein the “Tranquility” of “Democracy” goes topsy-turvy-scurvy some more, when members of the “Select Committee” bombard the Madcow airwaves for free campaign time, wherein the latter means getting free attention for that book on tour, promoting that upcoming documentary or that preoccupation in romance with Donald Jong Trump. Yes, because of that love-affair, he remains a free man! Love it or leave it, the latter means jail time for Trump! To make my point clear, just last night once again we found Jamie Raskin basking in that limelight, and once again side-tracking the truth in the matter, the latter which seems to be the puzzle instructions of this “Committee’s” mission, like still missing-in-action. Just what are you trying to prove? As it appears the way this “Committee” acts in “Coward”, can “We the People” look forward to something “concrete” in the category of holding responsible those that spear-headed this “Domestic Terrorist Attack”? See, Jamie tried to educate the MSNBC commentator and anybody else that was viewing in about the most recent Supreme Court “opine” that stold the thunder from under Trump, in his over-reaching exercise of “Executive Privilege”. But Jamie did not go far enough the issue at issue. And it is during times like this we need the “True Grit” instead of the gift of gab. See, Jamie and Lawrence were breaking open the champagne, over this SCOTUS “opine” that is for now blocking Donald John Trump from exerting “Executive Privilege” for sake of confidentiality his memoirs. FOR NOW, it is an important side attraction of the High Court’s verdict. And yes, the self-proclaimed “Constitutional Scholar” reminded the audience that it was a clean sweep 8 to 1 with only Gini Thomas in dissent. But that is not a true rendition the merits of the “opine”, and maybe Jamie should read Brett Kavanaugh’s take on what really matters in that unanimous…I would say that a majority were with Brett from the standpoint only in “opinion”, that it was “dicta” and the court made it clear and convincing that its decision did not set precedence. Since when has this been the argument in practice by the High Court, so it is a dire-straits “WARNING” and this “Select Committee” as well as “We the People” should take note of that. Has the High Court ever entered a decision that specifically challenges the age-old “precedence” it sets in delivering a verdict? NO! So let me spell it out what Mr. Kavanaugh said for the entire court:

Statement of JUSTICE KAVANAUGH respecting denial of “Privilege”.

The Court of Appeals suggested that a former President may not successfully invoke the Presidential communica­tions privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, at least if the current President does not sup­port the privilege claim. As this Court’s order today makes clear, those portions of the Court of Appeals’ opinion were DICTA and should not be considered binding precedent going forward.

Moreover, I respectfully disagree with the Court of Ap­peals on that point. A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privi­lege for communications that occurred during his Presi­dency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim. Concluding otherwise would eviscerate the executive privilege for Presidential communications.

By protecting the confidentiality of those internal communications, the Presidential communications privi­lege facilitates candid advice and deliberations, and it leads to more informed and better Presidential decision making. If Presidents and their advisers thought that the privilege’s protections would terminate at the end of the Presidency and that their privileged communications could be disclosed when the President left office (or were subject to the absolute control of a subsequent President who could be a political opponent of a former President), the conse­quences for the Presidency would be severe. Without suffi­cient assurances of continuing confidentiality, Presidents and their advisers would be chilled from engaging in the full and frank deliberations upon which effective discharge of the President’s duties depends.

To be clear, to say that a former President can invoke the privilege for Presidential communications that occurred during his Presidency does not mean that the privilege is absolute or cannot be overcome.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the privilege claim at issue here would not succeed even under the Nixon and Senate Select Committee tests. Therefore, as this Court’s order today makes clear, the Court of Appeals’ broader statements questioning whether a former President may successfully invoke the Presidential communications privi­lege if the current President does not support the claim were DICTA and should not be considered binding precedent going forward.

~~~~~

The take-aways from that “opine” is what Mr. Raskin should be calling out as a warning shot across the bow, as it means there will be a next time and the way Kavanaugh addresses the court’s dissatisfaction of how the lower court ruled, next time may be sooner than expected, we may see an entirely different verdict. As without precedence set, what have we in the course of jurisprudence - nothing! So Jamie should congratulate the verdict but at the same time, if he is indeed a Constitutional Scholar, well with boob-tube time use that gift to educate the non-legal thinking minds what is at stake here, tell us the good news but please do not forget the bad news. Which reminds me, has this “Select Committee” studied: Congressional Subpoenas - Enforcing Executive Branch Compliance - R45653 March 25, 2019 - Todd Garvey Legislative Attorney, U.S. Office of Legislative Counsel. It should have been a pre-qualifier for any member that sits on this “Committee”. If not, Bennie Thompson should drop all the friendly fire invites - which tries to take the place of a valid subpoena - and at the same time restrict the members away from air-time friendly invites, so that the members can study up on that OLC “guiding-light” like the “Legum Baccalaureus” finals are tomorrow. And if any member of this “Committee” is saying what the hell is this dude talking about with this “Enforcing Executive Branch Compliance”…then I rest my case we are amongst “Domestic Terrorist” and “Cowards” alike. I mean “We the People” pay taxes as a burden on our hard-earned income so that the Congress can pay for such research, which must have been requested due a concern upon the subject matter in interest. Yet if nobody is listening, is not it a waste of resources that could be put to better use, as bridges are falling down as we speak. And more likely then not, it is this valued publication by the OLC that spells it all out what this “Committee” would be up against with respect to serving “subpoenas” on the unwilling, like someone knew upfront what may be in store for the U.S. Congress when push comes to shove with Donald Jong Trump and corrupt company. And herein this publication, this research, is where Ted Lieu may have found the insight to propose House Resolution 1029, which reinforced $monetary$ fines upon individuals that refused to abide by a valid subpoena served to compel testimony. Unfortunately, this must have “Ted Lieu resolution” which was but for a Simple Simon “House Rules Change”, it failed as it went stuck in the Pelosi dismal swamp quagmire as there came more important things under consideration by the House Speaker, like the “Menstrual Equity in the Peace Corp Act”. And dear Jamie and Zoe, remember that “resolution”, as both of you were cosponsors for that much needed “Congressional Inherent Contempt Resolution”. And Ted did not let that resolution die when the 116^th went out of business, as when Pelosi gaveled in the 117^th, Ted once again proposed the same action, that which would benefit this “Select Committee” beyond a reasonable doubt to combat the obstructionists defying those subpoenas as is front and center of attention today. Thank God Ted doesn’t give up and H.Res.1029 was re-introduced as the same damn “tool” under H.Res.406. Sad, as it ended up in the same Pelosi shit-hole as before, once again before the “House Rules Committee” that which is controlled by the Democrats, and yes, Mr. Raskin is also a member of that “Committee”. So what in hell come high water is wrong with Pelosi’s gang? But even though Jamie was celebrating the ruling from the High Court, which does have some reservations in precedence-set, well the real celebration is not being enjoyed by this “Committee”, because the “Coward” in you all has gotten in the way. In that OLC “report” that provides the roadmap for this Congress in a “diverso intuitu” remedy who cares about the McConnell Senate, that dissertation by the Office of Legal Counsel finds but for a single roadblock when this report was published, upon its recommendations some 3-years ago so the times they are a changing, and that was upon the question of “Executive Privilege”. The latter considered a burden, and today we know it does not! Wherein all doubt was cast aside on January 19^th, that 8 to 1 verdict basically gave the Congress “cart blanche” power with respect to serving a subpoena and what to do with individuals-of-interest that defy such orders. But this is wherein we see the true merits of patriotism lost, with this “Select Committee” as it is afraid to act, it is in “Cowardly” mode. And I ask this “Select Committee” a very basic Patriotic question, will there ever be a better time to test the waters upon the “Inherent Contempt” powers that this Congress yields, not through the criminal referral or civil litigation mind you, but the option that has been given the “Green Light” by the United States Supreme Court. It was a “Domestic Terrorist Attack” planned and executed by none other then Donald John Trump, and by taking the easy way out, this “Committee” is showing its true colors, the yellow matter custard of a Coward. And maybe the reason Brett Kavanaugh was so upset in his “opine” wherein he said so just read between the lines, maybe because as a Constitutional Law Advocate, he knows what that verdict means for “Congressional Contempt” and the power to “Arrest”, especially now that “Executive Privilege” is no longer for the time being in the way of this “Committee” through this “Congress” to show its strength, through the power of “Attachment” as in an “Arrest”. So this “Committee” should subpoena Donald John Trump today, it has the “Congressional Inherent Contempt” gavel on its side and so to with the Supreme Court gavel still fresh its merits in Trump v. Thompson. This is the only clear shot this “Select Committee” will ever have to get to the bottom of assigning blame for that “Domestic Terrorist Attack”, an event wherein many members of the 117^th Congress have gone on record they suffer from “Severe Emotional Distress”. To balk at this opportunity, it means aid and comfort to the perpetrators, and I prefer to call you “Traitors”. To balk, you are letting down your colleagues that live each and every day with nightmares. Please prove me wrong, but I doubt you can. Not until you take this investigation with some seriousness, and use the “tools” that you have at your disposal to “Arrest”, especially now that the SCOTUS has taken away Trump’s learning permit. If you get off that “Coward” lullaby and make such an “Arrest” as is so allowed and that action then makes its way to the High Court, so be it as it is time this “Inherent Contempt” is elevated to the top to see wherein it stands in Constitutional wherewithal. And then in “opine” to either let Donald John Trump free or the fact the “Inherent Contempt” minds its business and Trump is denied bail, then we will see who they are with respect to the “Law of this Land”. And if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not in favor of using what it takes to make sure this “Select Committee” can do its business without any hinderance, that it can subpoena anybody including Jim Jordan and if these individuals-of-interest defy such a serving, then shall face the Sergeant-at-Arms with an “Arrest Warrant”, if it is Speaker Pelosi and maybe Adam Schiff and or any other members of this “Committee” that oppose using this method as outlined in the OLC mandate(see the highliners of this method below), then “We the People” need to know, as it may be unfair to call this entire “Select Committee” the “Coward Committee” when a few bad apples spoils my American pie.

The "Lousy Hat Solidarity Party"

~~~~~

For Your Patriotic Reading Enjoyment - How to Arrest the Turncoats

Subject: Congressional Subpoenas - Enforcing Executive Branch Compliance - R45653 March 25, 2019 - Todd Garvey Legislative Attorney, U.S. Office of Legislative Counsel

Return to the Inherent Contempt Power:

The House or Senate may also seek to utilize the inherent contempt power to enforce compliance with congressional subpoenas issued to executive branch officials. As noted, the Supreme Court has confirmed the existence of each house’s independent and unilateral authority to arrest and detain individuals in order to compel compliance with a subpoena. If either the House or Senate was to revive the inherent contempt power, the chamber may consider establishing specific procedures to be followed in its exercise. Such procedures could govern consideration of an inherent contempt resolution and actions of the Sergeant-at-Arms, as well as the process by which the House or Senate would conduct the “trial.”  These procedures could be established by a one-house resolution or—if both the House and Senate seek to use uniform procedures—by concurrent resolution or by statute. Although rare, the inherent contempt power has been used to detain executive branch officials, including for non-compliance with a congressional subpoena. During an 1879 investigation into allegations of maladministration by George F. Seward while a consul general in Shanghai, a House committee issued a subpoena to Seward for relevant documents and testimony. When Seward—then an ambassador to China—refused to comply, the House passed a resolution holding him in contempt and directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to take him into custody and bring him before the House. Seward was taken into custody and brought before the House, where he was ultimately released while the House considered impeachment articles. In another example which gave rise to Marshall v. Gordon, the House adopted a contempt resolution directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest U.S. Attorney Snowden Marshall for an insulting letter sent to a committee chair.  The arrest was then made and quickly challenged in federal court, where ultimately the Supreme Court ordered Marshall released. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the contempt power generally, but concluded that in Marshall’s case the contempt was invalid as “not intrinsic to the right of the House to preserve the means of discharging its legislative duties.”  Notably, the Court was silent on whether Marshall’s status as an executive branch official had any impact on the House’s exercise of the power. Given these examples, and the Supreme Court’s general statements on the reach of the inherent contempt power, it would appear to be within Congress’s power to use inherent contempt to compel executive branch compliance with congressional subpoenas, at least in certain circumstances. But neither the Seward nor Marshall example involved an assertion of executive privilege, meaning that the Court did not need to consider what, if any, constraints that privilege may impose upon Congress’s exercise of its inherent contempt authority. Moreover, an attempt by Congress to arrest or detain an executive official may carry other risks. There would appear to be a possibility that, if the Sergeant-at-Arms attempted to arrest an executive official, a standoff might occur with executive branch law enforcement tasked with protecting that official. This concern is also applicable in the event that a judicial marshal enforces a judicial order of contempt against an executive official, and perhaps will always be “attendant in high-stakes separation-of-powers controversies.”

Inherent Contempt and Executive Privilege:

Although any subpoena-enforcement mechanism used to override the President’s assertion of executive privilege may raise constitutional considerations, use of the inherent contempt power to detain an executive official to obtain documents or testimony the President has found to be privileged would likely raise unique concerns. As discussed, the 1984 OLC opinion issued in the wake of the Burford contempt concluded that the criminal contempt of Congress provision could not constitutionally be applied to an executive official asserting a President’s claim of executive privilege. The alternative, the OLC argued, “would immeasurably burden the President’s ability to assert the privilege and to carry out his constitutional functions” by requiring that subordinates risk a criminal trial and possible conviction to “vindicate” the privilege. In a footnote, the opinion extended that same conclusion to Congress’s use of inherent contempt to “arrest” and “punish” an executive branch official invoking a President’s claim of executive privilege. The OLC asserted that because the “reach” of the criminal contempt statute was “intended to be coextensive with Congress’s inherent civil contempt powers,” the “same reasoning that suggests that the criminal contempt statute could not constitutionally be applied against a Presidential assertion of privilege applies to Congress’ inherent contempt powers as well.”  This argument has never been tested in court, but was alluded to in Miers. There, the district court stated that the executive branch position was not “dispositive” and that the court “need not decide the issue.”  Nevertheless, the court acknowledged that “there are strong reasons to doubt the viability of Congress’s inherent contempt authority vis-a-vis senior executive officials.”  An argument can be made that the OLC position is based on a conception of inherent contempt not entirely consistent with the power’s historical use. For example, the criminal contempt statute does not appear to have been intended to be “coextensive” with inherent contempt. While 2 U.S.C. § 192 and its predecessors apply only to non-compliance with congressional subpoenas, the inherent contempt power applies to a much wider range of actions that threaten Congress’s ability to discharge the legislative function. The Supreme Court also appears to have viewed the two powers as distinct, noting that they are “separately exercised” and “diverso intuito.” As opposed to prosecution under the criminal contempt statute, inherent contempt is not necessarily imposed to “punish” the contemnor. In the context of subpoena enforcement, inherent contempt has in fact generally been remedial rather than punitive, in that any detention has generally been lifted once the subpoena is complied with. The Supreme Court, for example, noted in 1917 that it could not identify a “single instance where in the exertion of the power to compel testimony restraint was ever made to extend beyond the time when the witness should signify his willingness to testify . . . .” Even so, the Court also appears to have recognized that Congress retains the authority to use the inherent contempt power “solely” for purposes of punishment. Conflicts between the President’s constitutionally implied privilege to protect confidential executive branch communications and Congress’s constitutionally implied power to conduct investigative oversight prerogatives are not novel. Indeed, they have consistently arisen throughout American history, beginning as early as the first Congress when President Washington asserted that although the executive branch had a general obligation to comply with congressional requests for information, it still “ought to refuse those [papers], the disclosure of which would injure the public.” A full analysis of this long-standing debate is beyond the scope of this report. It is enough to suggest that historical practice and the limited case law both suggest that neither the President’s executive privilege nor Congress’s inherent contempt power is absolute. In the case of a conflict, judicial decisions relating to both executive privilege and Congress’s oversight and contempt powers would suggest that a resolution would most appropriately come through good-faith negotiations between the political branches in which each seeks to accommodate the needs of the other. If those negotiations fail, and Congress chooses to invoke the inherent contempt power against an executive branch official claiming executive privilege, a court would likely be called upon to resolve the dispute, presumably in the posture of a habeas proceeding or a civil suit for wrongful detention. Although the scope of this review is somewhat unclear, it would seem likely that a reviewing court would engage in a fact-based balancing of interests—weighing Congress’s legislative or oversight need for the information against the Executive’s need to maintain confidentiality in the specific instance.

~~~~~EOM