Subpoena Brett Kavanaugh

 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;

Great "Select Committee" status report from Elie Honig (https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/31/opinions/house-january-6-select committee-actions-honig/index.html), titled “The January 6^th Committee Faces a Stark Choice”. 

Especially of interest that gig on "Play Hardball or Give Up, it's more bark then bite" - sounds like too much "Emotional Distress" with the members. If that be the case, HELP is available. By the way what ever happened to Jeffrey Clark? And does Judd Deere ring a bell? Time-wise almost 72-hours since the news media said they received “preferential treatment” through an official copy of a subpoena letter served to this Trump individual-of-interest. Yet NOTHING on this "Reject Committee's" web-site, yes "REJECT" because it appears besides Mr. Thompson experiencing "Emotional Diarrhea" so is the "Transparency" finding that long and winding road to MIA! And when the "Committee" mentioned "Pubic Hearings" early in the year, what year were you talking about, as you are still serving "nothing-burger" subpoenas! Care to reschedule or give US an honest update? As a TIP, please start policing your ways and means as when reports like that so mentioned above from a confident journalist like Honig starts to circulate as “Breaking News” on CNN, first thing on a Monday morning it does not sit well, especially when the “Committee” does not second guess that report with a feedback comeback.  And also of concern in “Transparency”, as the latter is all US peons have at our disposal to render a consensus of what is going on with this “Committee” funded by taxation upon my hard-earned income, when the media gets advice upfront but no such critical information made available to "We the People" the American public, those of us concerned about what is going on with the "Domestic Terrorist Attack" its investigation, something is not right with the left. And for real as another TIP, this committee should consider a subpoena upon Brett Kavanaugh, as in his "opine" following the decision in Trump v. Thompson(21A272 on 1/19/2022) - which is but for a temporary relief for this Committee - his dissertation on the "Executive Privilege” warranted throws a wrinkle in any future evidence grabbing, and the way he overtly covets that “privilege” in anger what the “lower courts” adjudicated upon in false-witness “Dicta” to allow this “Committee” some evidence, that it does not “set-precedence” nor is it “binding”, well old legal-eye here is quite sure there will be challenges to any further discovery attempts. It appears that this coverage by the “High Court”, that Mr. Kavanaugh is in cover up mode in efforts to protect Mr. Trump at any cost, so maybe it was well known in the circle-jerk of the political beltway in “Who’s Who”, that this event was known about well in advance and was about to happen. For real, a court “opine” that wants to allow a “privilege” to a former president that was planning a coup? A privilege that will extend to his note takers in efforts to “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…full and frank deliberations upon which effective discharge of the President’s duties depends.”  Not a joke, this is what the “High Court” said, read all about it below. Thus there will be challenges, and this “Committee” may have in its hands all it will ever get in such evidence, as now Trump can use the Kavanaugh sway, and there will never come any accountability for the individual that planned and executed that “Attack” if Mr. Kavanaugh gets his way. By the way, the scorecard said it was a 9 to “Zero” dissent away from decency, so good luck. It seems like this “Select Committee” is wasting the Taxpayers’ dime and time its so far game plan and if that be the case then I am in agreement with Honig, as it is time to “play hardball or give up”. But you may have already blown that “hardball” chance, for respectfully denying early on the use of “Congressional Inherent Contempt” and what Ted Lieu and Madeleine Dean and others were advocating and sponsoring all along. And a further dereliction I find with this “Committee” the cart before the horse, by not pushing Pelosi’s “House Rules Committee” - to which Mr. Raskin of this committee is a sitting member so has a handle on the McGovern gavel - to get Ted’s H.Res.406 on the books as a “Law of the Land”. But there is a light at the end of the Trump funnel, please hear me out as this is a “Hardball TIP”, please don’t squander its existence in resistance for a pocket full of mumble-jumble. In an CRS research opinion prepared for members and committees of the U.S. Congress in 2019(Congressional Subpoenas: Enforcing Executive Branch Compliance - March 27, 2019 - Congressional Research Service - https://crsreports.congress.gov - R45653 authored by OLC legislative attorney Todd Garvey), this publication provides an excellent roadmap to what can and should be done today to enforce members of Trump’s executive branch to comply, to be compelled. But what limited that roadmap being put into use when it was conceived, that which would surely benefit this “Committee” now that the news media is saying the sky might be falling with this “Committee’s” ultimate mission, the fact that “Executive Privilege” was that roadblock to engage this legal means to compel those with a stubborn attitude and exerting that “Executive Privilege” for anything and everything close to the President, acting or former. But did not the Supreme Court just dismiss that roadblock? So even though the decision did not endorse the “stay” that Mr. Trump had demanded based on not being able to exercise any “Executive Privilege”, it opened up the floodgate for future claims that will more likely then not allow some semblance of an “Executive Privilege” moving forward, even for a former president even if at odds any “previous confidentiality” with the sitting Commander-in-Chief of the “National Archives”. But at the same time, this ruling allows a narrow window of opportunity wherein this “Committee” can play “hardball” and arrest those individuals that defy a subpoena and now may be the time for action, that “stark choice”, as more then ever before or in the future wherein that “bite becomes a bark”, as it is time to subpoena Donald John Trump, and use that CRS as a guide. Look, Trump cannot have it both ways, and right now as we speak and the news media is having doubts about this “Committee” to the extent it calls for a “give up” as the “bite is a bark” in the making, right now Mr. Trump does not have that “Executive Privilege” to exert and thus gives this “Committee” a “Green Light” to play that “Hardball”. This is a limited time offer, act now or forever hold your peace and then Mr. Trump will laugh all the way to the election booth. This is the opportunity of a lifetime, please act now, place the Pelosi IMAGE aside, as once the news media starts second guessing the wherewithal of this “Committee” it will be like an avalanche effect and other pundits will follow suit and that will flood away the well intentions of this “Select Committee’s” mission, as we find in limbo this morning. The fallout is starting!

Stugots, Lousy Hat Solidarity Party

~~~~

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.

~~~~~