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;
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
116th went out of business, as when Pelosi gaveled in the 117th,
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 19th, 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 117th 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
