Select Committee Family Vacation

1/8/22, 1:06 PM Tip Line | Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol

TIP LINE

Chairman Thompson is interested in any information regarding the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. We respect your need to remain confidential and will use your contact information only to follow up with you regarding your submission.

First Name: Stugots
Last Name: Scoregge nella mia testa
Email: LousyHatSolidarityParty@USA.net
Phone Number: 202-456-1111

Details:

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 & Feeble-Minded* Members” on the “Select Committee Investigating the January 6^th “Attack” on the United States Capitol”;

As usual, another week passed bad gas and it appears that with more important things to do this “Select Committee” skipped town and hijacked “Transparency” along for the joy-ride. Which seems to be a pattern, as there was not a single iota of an update what was accomplished by this “Team” to head-off the “wrecking ball” targeting “My Country ‘Tis of Thee its DEMOCRACY” by a head-on approach to castrate that Donald John Trump “insurgency” still in effect. Nothing on the “Select Committee’s” wasted non-realistic-outdated web-site and when I was an American workingman, if I left the work-site without filling in my log book so that other workers could view what was accomplished or what still needed attention, then I would be standing in the unemployment line - without an umbrella! Stinking in the rain, just stinking in the rain - hold that thought! OK, members of Congress never have to worry about that “line”, for dereliction of duty. But none to fear any fear itself, as the Honorable Representative “For All the People” Ted Lieu went out of his way to give US that week-end update, so Thank You Sir Ted. And being 10pm ET, I knew it would be the “Last Word” from the 117^th Congress, as by now the “Select Committee” members were long gone. And once again, Mr. Lieu was adamant that his “Inherent Contempt” legislation that is stalled in the “House Rules Committee” for way too long by now, a House Speaker Nancy Pelosi owned “committee” wherein Jamie Raskin is a member and yields some gavel power…well Jamie has more important things to do like hawking a book and a stage rehearsal for that “Weekend Special” tour delight, as Bob Woodward thinks that a “Broadway Show” is in the making for what the “Select Committee” is up to. I guess if it is modeled after Portnoy’s Complaint it will be a good investment for Woodward. But in your rush to just leave behind this “January 6^th Investigation”, that which has by now decided that “Friendly Invites” can obstruct justice by “trumping” any other means to compel individuals-of-interest, is this “Committee” committed to “Seriousness”? But it seems the game-plan works wonders for the “Select”, but for a ways and means for this “committee” to find an escape, an easy egress out of this mess without any fuss, as that “invite” is merely a “Pardon” for those that refuse to compel testimony even under a valid “Congressional Subpoena” issued by Beenie Thompson. Those “subpoenaed” by this “Select Committee” have made a crying shame “mockery” out of the wherewithal of the once almighty “Congress”. And why this “Select Committee” continues to argue with itself over the validity of slapping a valid “Congressional Subpoena” on one of your colleagues in crime on the other side of the isle, well what is it with this “Committee”? Maybe “You can’t handle the truth”, and “am I clear”, perfectly! But don’t take my word for what is proving to be more of the same with this “committee”, week after week of Trump’s soldiers in defiance and continuing to live a life of luxury in freedom, above “Citizen Kaine” with respect to “law abiding”. Here it is, from an MSNBC broadcast at 10pm ET, when a quiet calm had settled over the Capitol:

“Congressman Lieu, yesterday I(Jonathan Capehart} interviewed Chairman Thompson on Washington Post “live” and I asked him-um-are you going to subpoena congressman Jim Jordan and congressman Scott Perry? His answer was; “well we're looking to see if we have the authority.” Congressman Lieu, do you think that the committee has the authority to subpoena them and, and if so should?

“The, they absolutely, has that authority because in America no one is above the law, including members of congress. So if the committee believes that there's information that these members of congress can provide that will be relevant, then they, the committee actually has the power to issue the subpoena. I also note that unfortunately, what we've seen is because of delays in litigating these subpoenas, the last four years have shown that the Trump administration was able to render many of these subpoenas meaningless, because of the length of these delays. I’m on the house judiciary committee and Don McGahn, the foreign white house counsel, chose to litigate the subpoenas and it took over two years - although we won. We only got him in two years later and so we need to make sure that these folks don't run out the clock, which is why I think we have to pass my legislation on the inherent contempt bill, which would allow congress to enforce our own subpoenas.”

So what is this “Committee’s” problem with Ted Lieu’s “resolution”? Just because Adam Schiff is afraid to use the “inherent contempt” powers already of record with the Congress, like to “attach” individuals, why let that spoil all the fun? I don’t know why Schiff wants to overturn “McGrain v. Daugherty”, as by not using that case for what this “Committee” has been instructed to perform, it can fall apart, this “committee” should be putting that landmark case to the “test”? If ever there came a reason to “test” the merits of “McGrain” this “investigation” is it mind you! And with Ted’s “resolution” and the merits of “McGrain” in combination…well I am lost for words any encouragement this “Committee” is serious. So as a “TIP”, that it be best to place all things under consideration on “pause” for a brief moment as this “Committee” assembles for a peaceful protest, yes a march on the Capitol that which encourages Nancy Pelosi to get off her duff and get H.Res.1029 now as H.Res.406 front and center of attention, GET IT PASSED! To squander the existence of this “Tool”, it seems as though this “Committee” understands the power of delay, like Lieu alluded to and Raskin and Schiff understands what such delays can do to make a case “frivolous” as the “statute of limitation” runs TIKTOK dumb. Well then well said, what is standing in the way of this “Committee” to demand the passage of that legislation, as then all this whining by the “Committee” members, well it would be put to rest. Because if Pelosi is against the passage of that “resolution”, then it appears the “Select Committee” was selected for an ulterior motive, to make it look like it was seeking the truth for justice’s sake but was told to ignore anything that may help get to the bottom of that January 6^th “mess”. This “Committee” is trying to share a snorkel when the river of filth is on high-water overflow! Think of it this way. Had Ted Lieu’s “resolution” been timely passed in 2020 and now a “law of this land”, ask yourself how better off in situation this “Committee” would be in? By having the authority to have already utilized that Ted Lieu “tool”, it would have produced results. One thing for sure on the latter, this “Committee” and American would not have to depend on the Merrick Garland DOJ. For this “Select Committee” that embodies the “Reject Committee” concept instead, those that “reject” Ted Lieu’s “resolution” maybe due ignorance - I doubt it - but just in case, here is the background of Ted Lieu’s “Congressional Inherent Contempt Resolution”: Introduced before the 116^th U.S. Congress in June of 2020, right after House Speaker Pelosi gaveled in the 2^nd session. Ted’s “resolution” received 25-cosponsors, including Jamie Raskin in “signatory authority” as an originator along with Zoe Lofgren, both members of this “Select Committee” so one cannot pull the bluff defense on these members, as they would not have cosigned that “resolution” without understanding its merits. Now Zoe did not become a fan of this “resolution” until December of 2020, when there was only…well it was Christmas and the 116^th was at end, so no way for that interest as a “cosponsor” to be meaningful accept the fact maybe this “resolution” would find a new life with the 117^th and Zoe would be there with her patriotic salute to support this “tool” through passage. We will see wherein that leads further down the Pelosi Pike. Now to be clear, perfectly some more, that Ted Lieu “resolution” as entered with the 116^th Congress is recorded as; “SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This resolution may be cited as the “Congressional Inherent Contempt Resolution”. And so important was that “resolution” based on the tough times then and signals of tough times ahead with a bad-loser Freak’n Moron still in the Oval Office, it was immediately sent to the “House Rules Committee”, I believe chaired by a democrat, maybe it was Jim McGovern as the democrats owned the “House”. It meant it was considered a “simple” rules change no fuss about it! And there were other members of the “House Rules”, democrats that were also original cosponsors of this highly recommended “resolution” already on board, as Ted did a great job in selling this “tool”. So yes, overwhelming support from democrats in a “House” controlled by the Nancy Pelosi gavel. But due to the fact there was more important “last minute legislation” pressing for passage in the “Chamber” before the 116^th ceased to exist, like the “Menstrual Equity in the Peace Corp Act”, well by the time Pelosi’s gavel went limp at the end of the 116^th, so did Ted’s “resolution” find its way to the “trash bin” and on January 3^rd, someone hit the “Empty Trash” button. Ted’s “resolution” was thus history not in the making! But wait there is more! When still House Speaker again Nancy Pelosi gaveled in the 117^th at the beginning of 2021, well in the following June and basically at the same time this “Select Committee” was being inaugurated, Ted re-submitted that same “resolution” nothing had changed, now under H.Res.406, that which then found 16-cosponsors. And even though Zoe waited until December of 2020 to sign on to the original “resolution” some many days since it was introduced in the “House”, this time she was a no-show - which means Zoe and Adam must be on the same page - afraid! But Ted’s “resolution” in the 117^th found the same interest, no additional questions asked proven worthwhile the first go-around and once again immediately sent to Jim McGovern’s “House Rules Committee”, wherein, well if you go onto the government site that monitors the “House Rules Committee” actions and “Search” by “Inherent Contempt” you get “Sorry, your search yielded no results”. And I know that these government sites have very powerful search engines, as it is all “We the People” sometimes have at our disposal as our very own tools for “Transparency”. But if you toy run an “Advanced Search” and enter H.R.406, which is Ted Lieu’s official resolution for “Congressional Inherent Contempt”, well low and behold a hit and we find “H.R.406-Shark Sales Elimination Act of 2021”. Which is also one of Ted’s “resolutions”. So just WTF is going on? It appears the Real McCoy 406 has been sabotaged to failure, as I could find no leads of its existence on the “House Rules” donkey. But it does not matter, the fact this “Select Committee” continues to produce nothing and enjoys the weekend getaways without a morsel of an update what it is accomplishing, one can only speculate there is no interest in what really happened on January 6^th. It looks good, it sounds good, but it stinks! Please prove me wrong, STOP everything this “Select Committee” is doing and confront Nancy Pelosi and Jim McGovern on why “shark sales elimination” is more important then an another “insurgency elimination”. Until such time this “Committee” takes it upon itself to push to passage Ted Lieu’s “Congressional Inherent Contempt Resolution” and joins that with the inherent merits of “McGrain v. Daugherty”, take my advise and advice, this “Committee” will not prove anything worthwhile in defending Democracy.

Note1: feeble-minded as is slow.

Note 2: This is a “TIP” and delivered to the “Select Committee’s” TIP line as it appears to be the only means to provide timely advice and advise on a concern of interest and I would not waste a postage stamp.

No Exercise of “Confidentiality” is requested with this “TIP” Respectfully Submitted by the “Lousy Hat Solidarity Party” under the Freedom of Obligation and under the guidance of Marshall v. Gordon and not intended to “prevent or obstruct the discharge of this Committee’s legislative duty.” In no way shape or form should this “Correspondence of Concern” impede the House’s ability to legislate, it is just entered as a “TIP”.

For reference, below find the Ted Lieu “resolution” for your toilet time reading pleasure:

Or if you prefer, the “Link”: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/406/text

Introduced in House (05/17/2021)

RESOLUTION

         Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives with respect to the enforcement of committee subpoenas to executive branch officials, and for other purposes.

Resolved,

             SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This resolution may be cited as the “Congressional Inherent Contempt Resolution”.

             SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT POWER.

Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new clauses:

“Additional Subpoena Enforcement Power

“7.(a) Whenever any committee or subcommittee makes a written request to any department or agency of the Government for the attendance of named witnesses or the production of such books, records, correspondence, memorandum, papers, documents, and electronic or digital files, data or information, in any form, including any electronic or digital files, data or information in any searchable formats in which they are available to or can be produced by the agency, as the committee or subcommittee considers necessary, a senior responsible official shall either comply with that request or file written objections within the time frame for response set forth in the request.

“(b) If the senior responsible official files written objections within the timeframe for response, the committee or subcommittee shall seek to resolve these objections through negotiation and accommodation. If a resolution cannot be reached, staff shall so certify to the chair of the committee.

“(c) If the senior responsible official fails to file objections or make available the designated witnesses or full production of responsive records and information within the timeframe for response, the chair of the committee may issue a subpoena to the senior responsible official for any unproduced records or information as to which no objection was filed, and to any designated witness to which no objection was filed.

“(d) With respect to any portion of the written request for documents and witnesses to which timely objection was made, a subpoena to the senior responsible official and to designated witnesses, may be issued, following conclusion of the negotiations referred to in paragraph (b), by—

“(1) the chair, upon 48 hours notice to the ranking member, unless the ranking member objects during that period; or

“(2)

“a vote of the committee.

“(e) The senior responsible official and other witnesses to whom a subpoena is issued have the right to be accompanied only by non-government private counsel during all proceedings conducted pursuant to this clause (even if the witness is a government official or employee). The committee in taking testimony will follow the procedures for taking depositions and resolving disputes over objections to questions that are prescribed by the House Rules Committee for such testimonial proceedings [see 165 Cong. Rec. H1216–17 (Jan. 25, 2019)].

“(f) If the senior responsible official files written objections to a subpoena issued under paragraphs (c) or (d) within the timeframe for response, or the President personally and in writing asserts a claim of executive privilege with respect to the records, information, and witnesses at issue, the committee may hold a hearing to consider these objections. The senior responsible official shall personally attend this hearing but may not assert Executive Privilege on behalf of the President, and the committee chair may grant an exception for good cause shown.

“(g) If the committee overrules some or all of the objections asserted, it may issue an order of compliance which states the grounds for rejection of the objections, the date for compliance, and an advisement of the legal consequences of a failure to comply. The senior responsible official and subpoenaed witnesses shall comply with such order within the timeframe for response. If prior to such time, the President asserts a claim of executive privilege, it shall be made personally and in writing, and will be considered by the committee with all other timely objections. Witnesses may not assert a claim of executive privilege in the absence of such an assertion by the President.

“(h) On the failure of the senior responsible official or subpoenaed witnesses to comply with the order, the committee shall meet to assess whether the noncompliance rises to the level of a breach of the constitutional privilege and duty of the House to be fully informed in order to properly perform its legislative responsibilities without undue obstruction and thereby warrants condemnation and punishment. If so, the committee shall report a privileged resolution of contempt. The accompanying report shall include a detailed history and nature of the controversy and attempts at accommodation; the legal issues raised; the legislative need for the information sought; the legal and practical reasons for the determination that the objections were rejected; and the recommended monetary penalties.

“(i) If the committee reports a resolution of contempt, it shall be treated as a rule IX question of privilege of the House requiring precedence over all other questions until resolved and promptly scheduled for floor consideration. The chair of the committee shall present the case for passage of the resolution. At the conclusion of the allotted period for presentations, questions and debate, a vote on passage of the resolution will be taken. If the vote is for passage, a second vote will be taken on the committee’s recommendation for imposition of a monetary penalty. A proffer of an amendment to alter the recommended penalty is in order.

“(j)(1) Upon House passage of the resolution of contempt the contemnor shall be assessed by the body an initial penalty of not more than $25,000 and total penalties of not more than $100,000. The amount of the ultimate penalty depends on timeliness of the contemnor’s compliance in providing information withheld. The initial penalty of not more than $25,000 may be increased by the committee chair by increments of not more than $25,000 after a one-time waiting period of 10 calendar days from the initial penalty until the $100,000 maximum is reached. The 10-day period shall only be observed after the first penalty. Upon expiration of the 10-day waiting period, if the chair deems the measure of compliance by the contemnor is insufficient to satisfy the legislative needs of the committee, the chair may, over a period of not more than fifteen days, at his or her discretion, increase the penalty by increments of not more than $25,000 until the maximum is reached. Upon expiration of the 10-day waiting period, the General Counsel is authorized to recover any accrued penalties, but only if the contemnor has failed to comply with the subpoena before the end of such 10-day period. Nothing in this clause shall be interpreted to limit the ability of the House to impose additional legislative punishments on the contemnor for noncompliance.

“(2)

“No appropriated funds, funds provided from any accounts in the Treasury, funds derived from collection of fees, or other Government funds shall be used to pay a monetary penalty imposed by the House under this clause.

“(3)

“No person, group, entity, organization, or corporation may make payments to, reimburse or offer remuneration of any kind to compensate a contemnor for, or assist a contemnor in paying, any portion of a monetary penalty imposed by the House. Nor shall any person, group, entity, organization, or corporation be permitted to pay any monetary penalties directly on behalf of a contemnor. The House may regard such actions to compensate, reimburse or provide remunerations or payments to a contemnor as an obstruction of its investigative and information gathering prerogatives and responsibilities and a contempt of the House.

“(k) Nothing in this clause shall be interpreted to diminish the inherent institutional self-protective authorities, methods and practices of the House for enforcing committee subpoenas, nor shall anything in this clause be interpreted to diminish the discretionary power of any committee to determine the acceptability of any constitutional or common law based privilege asserted to justify noncompliance with a congressional subpoena.

“(l) As used in this clause:

“(1) The term ‘senior responsible official’ refers to an executive branch official with control or custody over the records or information or the subordinate officials or employees that are sought and who is a civil officer subject to removal from the office under Article II, section 4, of the Constitution, unless no such civil officer has control or custody over the records or information sought.

“(2)

“The term ‘objections’ includes an appropriate privilege log, which shall describe with particularity the records or information withheld and the basis for withholding. The log shall be in such form as instructed by the committee or, in the absence of such instruction, shall be in the form that would be required by the rules and practice of the United States District for the District of Columbia. Failure to file an appropriate and timely privilege log shall be a basis for overruling or disregarding any objection.

“Additional Subpoena Enforcement Power

“8.(a) Whenever any committee or subcommittee makes a written request to any person for testimony or the production of such books, records, correspondence, memorandum, papers, documents, and electronic or digital files, data or information, in any form, including any electronic or digital files, data or information in any searchable formats in which they are available to or can be produced by that person, as the committee or subcommittee considers necessary, such person shall either comply with that request or file written objections within the time frame for response set forth in the request.

“(b) If such person files written objections within the timeframe for response, the committee or subcommittee shall seek to resolve these objections through negotiation and accommodation. If a resolution cannot be reached, staff shall so certify to the chair of the committee.

“(c) If such person fails to file objections or provide testimony or full production of responsive records and information within the timeframe for response, the chair of the committee may issue a subpoena to such person for any unproduced testimony or records or information as to which no objection was filed.

“(d) With respect to any portion of the written request for documents and testimony to which timely objection was made, a subpoena may be issued, following conclusion of the negotiations referred to in paragraph (b), by—

“(1)

“the chair, upon 48 hours notice to the ranking member, unless the ranking member objects during that period; or

“(2)

“a vote of the committee.

“(e) Any person to whom a subpoena is issued has the right to be accompanied only by non-government private counsel during all proceedings conducted pursuant to this clause. The committee in taking testimony will follow the procedures for taking depositions and resolving disputes over objections to questions that are prescribed by the House Rules Committee for such testimonial proceedings [see 165 Cong. Rec. H1216–17 (Jan. 25, 2019)].

“(f) If such person files written objections to a subpoena issued under paragraphs (c) or (d) within the timeframe for response, the committee may hold a hearing to consider these objections. The person shall personally attend this hearing, but the committee chair may grant an exception for good cause shown.

“(g)

“If the committee overrules some or all of the objections asserted, it may issue an order of compliance which states the grounds for rejection of the objections, the date for compliance, and an advisement of the legal consequences of a failure to comply. The person shall comply with such order within the timeframe for response.

“(h)

“On the failure of the person to comply with the order of compliance, the committee shall meet to assess whether the noncompliance rises to the level of a breach of the constitutional privilege and duty of the House to be fully informed in order to properly perform its legislative responsibilities without undue obstruction and thereby warrants condemnation and punishment. If so, the committee shall report a privileged resolution of contempt. The accompanying report shall include a detailed history and nature of the controversy and attempts at accommodation; the legal issues raised; the legislative need for the information sought; the legal and practical reasons for the determination that the objections were rejected; and the recommended monetary penalties.

“(i)

“If the committee reports a resolution of contempt, it shall be treated as a rule IX question of privilege of the House requiring precedence over all other questions until resolved and promptly scheduled for floor consideration. The chair of the committee shall present the case for passage of the resolution. At the conclusion of the allotted period for presentations, questions and debate, a vote on passage of the resolution will be taken. If the vote is for passage, a second vote will be taken on the committee’s recommendation for imposition of a monetary penalty. A proffer of an amendment to alter the recommended penalty is in order.

“(j)(1) Upon House passage of the resolution of contempt the contemnor shall be assessed by the body an initial penalty of not more than $25,000 and total penalties of not more than $100,000. The amount of the ultimate penalty depends on timeliness of the contemnor’s compliance in providing information withheld. The initial penalty of not more than $25,000 may be increased by the committee chair by increments of not more than $25,000 after a one-time waiting period of 10 calendar days from the initial penalty until the $100,000 maximum is reached. The 10-day period shall only be observed after the first penalty. Upon expiration of the 10-day waiting period, if the chair deems the measure of compliance by the contemnor is insufficient to satisfy the legislative needs of the committee, the chair may, over a period of not more than fifteen days, at his or her discretion, increase the penalty by increments of not more than $25,000 until the maximum is reached. Upon expiration of the 10-day waiting period, the General Counsel is authorized to recover any accrued penalties, but only if the contemnor has failed to comply with the subpoena before the end of such 10-day period. Nothing in this clause shall be interpreted to limit the ability of the House to impose additional legislative punishments on the contemnor for noncompliance.

“(2) No appropriated funds, funds provided from any accounts in the Treasury, funds derived from collection of fees, or other Government funds shall be used to pay a monetary penalty imposed by the House under this clause.

“(3)

“No person, group, entity, organization, or corporation may make payments to, reimburse or offer remuneration of any kind to compensate a contemnor for, or assist a contemnor in paying, any portion of a monetary penalty imposed by the House. Nor shall any person, group, entity, organization, or corporation be permitted to pay any monetary penalties directly on behalf of a contemnor. The House may regard such actions to compensate, reimburse or provide remunerations or payments to a contemnor as an obstruction of its investigative and information gathering prerogatives and responsibilities and a contempt of the House.

“(k) Nothing in this clause shall be interpreted to diminish the inherent institutional self-protective authorities, methods and practices of the House for enforcing committee subpoenas, nor shall anything in this clause be interpreted to diminish the discretionary power of any committee to determine the acceptability of any constitutional or common law based privilege asserted to justify noncompliance with a congressional subpoena.

“(l) As used in this clause:

“(1)

“The term ‘person’ includes an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization other than a department or agency of the Government.

“(2)

“The term ‘objections’ has meaning given to such term in section 7(l).”.

~~~~~EOC~~~~~

1/8/22, 1:07 PM Tip Line - Thank You | Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol

TIP LINE - THANK YOU

Dear Constituent,

Thank you for contacting the Select Committee and sharing information regarding the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol.

The Select Committee has received your submission and is prepared to follow up on the information you provided as appropriate. We respect your need to remain confidential and will use your contact information only to follow up with you regarding your submission, unless we determine disclosure is required.

Sincerely, Bennie G. Thompson Chairman