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 6th
“Domestic Terrorist Attack” on the United States Capitol, along with the
missing-in-action members in vacancy status;
A 14-day extension for the “Committee
Members” to answer to the Meadows v. Pelosi complaint? In excuse “in
light of their schedules and official travel”? For real, then may I
suggest less time on the Rachal Madcow hour! What are you trying to hide, as is
not time of the essence in this “investigation”? Beginning to believe this
additional time, as so with the Trump v. Thompson time extension, it is due the
fact this “Committee” is floundering. Just an honest assessment of what it
looks like from the outside, when trying to stay on the side of Democracy and
would like to continue support for this Committee’s “investigation”, but what
is going on? If there is nothing to hide by the “Committee” and or Pelosi in
the Meadows’ case, then STOP this harassing of “We the People”, just answer the
complaint timely so we can then see how Judge Nichols views the “merits” of the
case. Then again if Pelosi had a “bad hair day” and allowed the violation of
the “composition” of H.Res.503, and the “Committee Chair” went along with it,
then maybe it best time to cut the losses. Yes, abandon the efforts. It is
wonderful all the evidence the “Committee” has so far collected and it appears
bragging rights every night makes us confident the “investigation” is still
meaningful, but what good is it if Meadows’ case is not dismissed? Why are
there still “vacancies” in the “Select Committee” roster, when the language of
503 is specific in that “Shall”? It appears Mr. Meadows has a very strong case,
and if he prevails, well maybe that DOJ “referral” is moot - is that why the “Committee”
wants to extend things? And could it be that Merrick Garland’s DOJ cannot, will
not rule on the Mark Meadows’ “Criminal Contempt” referral from House Speaker
Pelosi until such time this “Select Committee” and Nancy Pelosi with “respect
to the institution” find the time to prioritize what is, well a priority? It
appears this “Committee” is now stalling to buy time, not what “We the People”
would have expected from a Democratic sponsored “Committee” with a mission to
get to the bottom of how Donald John Trump was responsible for the January 6th
“Domestic Terrorist Attack” on the U.S. Capitol. So why the “water-boarding”? So let me answer
the court for Pelosi and this “Committee” in a 1,2, 3 strikes you’re out!
According to House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi’s House Resolution 503, that which was the foundation for the “Select
Committee”, it SHALL:
SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.
(a) Appointment
Of Members.—The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of
whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.
(b) Designation
Of Chair.—The Speaker shall designate one Member to serve as chair of the
Select Committee.
(c) Vacancies.—Any
vacancy in the Select Committee shall be filled in the same manner as the
original appointment.
Yes your honor, we never
convened a full posse! Nancy had a bad hair day and Bennie suffers from
“emotional distress”, so we have engaged in a disregard of minority rights.
Case Closed. Why cannot this “Committee” begin to come honest with “We the People”
that due stubbornness, that this “Committee” may be in serious jeopardy to
continue on, as Judge Nichols will not find any amusement in a Congress that
does not follow its own “rules”. So just give it up, be honest with the Court
and admit that this “Committee” is not a “Committee” and then “We the People”
will find an understanding how with Pelosi it was IMAGE before Country!
Stugots, Lousy Hat
Solidarity Party
-and for reference:
On the motion filed February
15th, 2021, in Meadows v. Pelosi:
CONSENT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION
OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Pursuant to Local Rule 7 and the
Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases (ECF No. 4), Defendants the Honorable
Nancy Pelosi, the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, the Honorable Elizabeth L.
Cheney, the Honorable Adam B. Schiff, the Honorable Jamie B. Raskin, the
Honorable Susan E. Lofgren, the Honorable Elaine G. Luria, the Honorable Peter
R. Aguilar, the Honorable Stephanie Murphy, the Honorable Adam D. Kinzinger,
and the United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol move for an extension of time to respond to
Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff Mark Meadows filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1)
on December 8, 2021. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(3), the
response to Plaintiff’s Complaint is currently due on February 18, 2022, 60
days after service of the summons and original complaint on the U.S. Attorney
for the District of Columbia. See ECF No. 7; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(3).
Defendants seek a 14-day extension of the deadline to respond to the Complaint,
until March 4, 2022.
Defendants, all Members of
Congress, are actively engaged in studying the various alternatives in the
litigation and need more time, in light of their schedules and official travel,
prior to responding.
No comments:
Post a Comment