Posted on July 26 2019
APPLICATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF CERTAIN GRAND JURY MATERIALS
And Enforcement of McGahn Subpoena
The 53 page complaint found here. The House Judiciary’s prerequisite goal is to obtain a Court Order for the Rule 6e grand jury materials (see previous write up here) from the Special Counsel's report and to enforce the Committee's subpoena for former White House Counsel Don McGahn's testimony. Below are two “for the record” documents proffered during Mueller’s testimony.
This week's @HouseJudiciary hearing with Special Counsel Mueller made clear any other American would have been prosecuted based on evidence uncovered in his report. Today, we're taking legal action to secure key witnesses and documents we need to hold the President accountable. pic.twitter.com/WZCCl2KcB6— (((Rep. Nadler))) (@RepJerryNadler) July 26, 2019
To understand the why you should know the actual local rule 57.6, (found on page 161 of the DC local rules) which reads in part:
LCrR 57.6 - APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF IN A CRIMINAL CASE BY PERSONS
NOT PARTIES TO THE CASE
Any news organization or other interested person, other than a party or a subpoenaed witness, who seeks relief relating to any aspect of the proceedings in a criminal case shall file an application for such relief in the Miscellaneous Docket of the Court. The application shall include a statement of the applicant's interest in the matter as to which relief is sought, a statement of facts and a specific prayer for relief. The application shall be served on the parties to the criminal case and shall be referred by the Clerk to the trial judge assigned to the criminal case for determination.
As the above-encaptioned local rule dictates the party must file “a statement of the Applicant’s interest. See pages 1 and 2 - the subtext here is the House Judiciary wants all Grand Jury Materials, Transcripts, Affidavits etc. as previously discussed:
Item (1) Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e):
Of which you can find and read here. This should not surprise you becuase I previously explained to ready yourself that AG Barr would likely use this Rule as to shield and protect the Grand Jury. Rule 6 (e) reads in part:
Rule 6(e) Recording and Disclosing the Proceedings.
(1) Recording the Proceedings. Except while the grand jury is deliberating or voting, all proceedings must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device. But the validity of a prosecution is not affected by the unintentional failure to make a recording. Unless the court orders otherwise, an attorney for the government will retain control of the recording, the reporter’s notes, and any transcript prepared from those notes.
(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).
(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:
(i) a grand juror; (ii) an interpreter; (iii) a court reporter; (iv) an operator of a recording device; (v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony; (vi) an attorney for the government; or (vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).
(3) Exceptions.(A) Disclosure of a grand-jury matter-other than the grand jury’s deliberations or any grand juror’s vote-may be made to:(i) an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney’s duty;
My point is - the House Judiciary might have a extraordinary high bar to overcome with the following request:
...any underlying transcripts or exhibits referenced in the portions of the Mueller Report that were redacted pursuant to Rule 6(e); and (3) transcripts of any underlying grand jury testimony and any grand jury exhibits that relate directly to...
On page 11 (marked page 1 of the actual Complaint) - off the bat you should also understand the House Judiciary innovation of Criminal versus Civil Federal Rules of Procedure will be overlooked. The subtext here is in fact the only governmental body that the Constitution explicitly states can start impeachment is the House Judiciary hence why the second and third paragraphs are incredibly important:
What you might not know is the House Judiciary Chairman has/had a running series and various hearings. In order to assist you in understanding the arch and progression of the House Judiciary - I’ve embedded the series below and pulled out the interesting tidbits. This will help you understand the totality of today’s Complaint:
Lessons from the Mueller Report, Part I Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes
document at least 171 contacts between members of the Trump campaign and transition team and the Russian government. Sixteen Trump campaign officials are known to have had direct communications with Russian agents. Representatives of the Trump campaign exchanged emails and phone calls and held face-to-face meetings with high-level Russian government officials, Russian oligarchs, and even some of the hackers the Special Counsel accused of working to sway the election.
Judiciary Hearing - Monday, June 10, 2019 - this link will take you to the actual hearing and the written witness testimony.
June 20, 2019 Lessons from the Mueller Report,Part II: Bipartisan Perspective
July 12, 2019 Lessons from the Mueller Report, Part III: “Constitutional Processes for Addressing Presidential Misconduct”
Memorandum issued to all Members of the Committee, “[w]ith regard to the Committee’s responsibility to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President, articles of impeachment have already been introduced in this Congress and referred to the Judiciary Committee. They are under consideration as part of the Committee’s investigation, although no final determination has been made. In addition, the Committee has the authority to recommend its own articles of impeachment...
What the crux of the Judiciary Committee’s Complaint is - absent all or as much of the Grand Jury Materials and other underlying documents used to create the 448+page Mueller Report - this severely handicaps the House Judiciary Committee to determine if Articles of Impeachment are warranted.
The “president’s state of mind” is far more important than you might know - not just to potential impeachment but it is likely a predicate for the “consciousness of guilt” conduct that Trump & his closest surrogates have displayed in the past two and a half years.
On one hand the Committee argues they need access to any and all materials but later they narrow their scope as it relates to Don McGahn - I’m not certain how persuasive that argument is because it’s kind of like asking for everything and then saying “materials involving McGahn” but also to gain insight into Trump’s state of mind.
I’ve honestly never understood why the media some what dropped the ball on how the Trump campaign thanks to Jared Kushner & Brad Parscale and Trump Jr tailored their campaigns around the WikiLeaks dumps.
“planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.“
Candidate Trump cited WikiLeaks in public statements more than 140 times throughout the campaign and publicly praised its actions, even declaring, “I love WikiLeaks.”.
In at least one instance, the Mueller Report suggests that he had advance knowledge of upcoming releases by WikiLeaks: the report details a phone call that Trump took on his way to an airport while he was with former deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, and it states that “shortly after the call candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming.”
Moreover this Trump Jr twitter archive will take you to the 184 unique tweets stating WikiLeaks. Of that universe of data-points 179 of those tweets occurred during the election. With the highest concentration a month before the 2016 presidential election. Trump Sr’s Twitter Archive will take you to the 15 unique tweets - with the highest concentration in October of 2016 - just before the election. For your visual aid I’ve put Trump Sr’s WikiLeaks tweets in a red box
I also want to bring to your attention (again) Trump’s June 7, 2016 “speech” where he states (at the 6:30 minute marker):
I am going to give a major speech - probably Monday of next week...on all the things that have taken place with the Clintons - I think you’re going to find it very informative and interesting..,”
I am genuinely surprised none of this factual data is contained in the Complaint - especially the June 7, 2016 “speech” that was less than one day after the June 6, 2016 infamous Trump Tower meeting - you want to know what “consciousness of guilt” looks and sounds like? Re-watch that video.
With respect to then Acting Attorney General Yates - she was first to sound the alarm and personal met with Don McGahn concerning Flynn and Kislyak - not only did AAG Yates contact the White House Counsel’s Office, she had multiple follow up communications concerning Flynn’s lies...
Do you want to know textbook witness intimidation looks like?
Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Counsel.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 8, 2017
James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2017
Starting on page 22 (marked page 12) of the Complaint argues the Constitutional Authority and Rules that Govern the 116th Congress, below you’ll find additional information. Should you be inclined I did a decent (albeit super heavy write up concerning the Mazars Subpoena found here.
You can read the House of Representatives, U. S. HR 6 House Rules and now this might give you the clearest indication of why current White House Counsel Pat Cipollone has repeatedly transmitted letters to Congress citing the House Rules are unavailing (not). This link will take you to the eight previous write ups where I explicitly stated Cipollone is categorically wrong as it relates to House Rule X...
Again the House Judiciary is in fact the Committee where Impeachment proceedings start - as the Complaint argues:
Committee exercises jurisdiction regarding the criminal laws of the United States. Additionally, the Committee exercises jurisdiction regarding the structure and functions of the Department of Justice, including legislation regarding independent counsels and special counsels. The Committee’s jurisdiction also includes consideration of articles of impeachment. Jefferson’s Manual explains that “resolutions . . . that directly call for the impeachment of...
On pages 12 & 13 there are numerous footnotes - in order to assist you - I’ve embedded the documents referenced in the footnotes:
165 Cong. Rec. H208 (daily ed. Jan. 3, 2019) (referral of H.R. 197, the “Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act,” 116th Cong., to the Committee).
referral to the Committee of H. Res. 621, 115th Cong., impeaching President Trump
referral to the Committee of H. Res. 438, 115th Cong., impeaching President Trump
referral to the Committee of H. Res. 13, 116th Congress
And yes I know how sick of seeing letters that you are...what you need to understand is this is how the DC Machine protects itself. Letters aren’t as toothless as you’d like to think. When it comes to Congressional “letters” you have to understand they serve multiple purposes - Document trail, contemporaneously memorializes a specific event and/or request and most importantly its part of the “process”. Meaning if you rush to Court absent a robust record of evidence well then you do so at your own litigation peril. As such this March 25, 2019 letter to Roy Cohn 2.0 colloquially known as Attorney General Barr (note my sarcasm) is repeatedly referenced, specifically on pages 14 and 15 which reads in part:
Chairman Nadler, Chairman Schiff, and the chairs of other committees wrote to Attorney General Barr that “[t]he release of the full report and the underlying evidence and documents is urgently needed by our committees to perform their duties under the Constitution.” Among other things, the chairs noted that “Congress must be permitted to make an independent assessment of the evidence regarding obstruction of justice.” The chairs further urged the Attorney General “to begin the process of consultation with us immediately” to the extent he believed “applicable law limit[ed] [his] ability to comply”
With respect to the counterintelligence matters, it is important to remind you (again) that this Investigation started out as a Counterintelligence Investigation and the reality is as President - Trump has given our Country’s adversaries like Putin et al a green light to continue to attack America. Trump calls Russia’s attack on the heart of our Democracy as a “hoax” and the REAL Investigation as a “witch hunt” - it’s offensive because that POS stood shoulder to shoulder with Putin in Helsinki and slammed our Intelligence Community. Should you be inclined I’d recommend that you re-watch the April 2019 HPSCI Hearing - the written testimony particularly that of Ambassador McFaul and Lorber’s “Putin’s playbook” is of utmost importance:
Now moving on to the “absolute immunity” - to further assist you in understanding how the Trump-Justice Department is completely buckled under the “leadership” of Roy Cohn 2.0 I’ve embedded the current OLC Memorandums - this is what real-time Obstructive Behavior looks like. This is Trump weaponizing the Department of Justice. Insofar as to use the DOJ to shield Trump et al - you should also understand this grotesque undue political influence will damage the credibility and trust many of us have so blindly given to the DOJ.
And lastly this entry should make one thing pretty clear. This Complaint is merely one step in the arduous task that is known as impeachment. What this Complaint seeks is a Court Order to make the Department of Justice handover materials (documents, transcripts, Grand Jury etc) that were used in the Mueller Report. What is going to get lost in the drama is this is merely informational to “assist” members of the House to “investigate” if an impeachment trial is warranted. You’ll note I specifically used the wording “Impeachment Trial” - because SCOTUS has affirmed that Impeachment is a trial, see Case Law below:
The Constitution vest the powers of impeachment House of Representatives, as in the: “Sole Impeachment Power”
Resolutions regarding impeachment may be of two types. A resolution impeaching a particular individual who is within the category of impeachable officers under Art. II, Sec. 4 of the Constitution is usually referred directly to the House Committee on the Judiciary. A resolution to authorize an investigation as to whether grounds exist for the House to exercise its impeachment power is referred to the House Committee on Rules. Generally, such a resolution is then referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
In the House impeachment investigation with respect to President Richard M. Nixon, a resolution reported out of the House Judiciary Committee, H.Res. 803,11 was called up for immediate consideration as a privileged matter.
The important yet nuanced point here is the House Judiciary Committee has the power and authority to investigate fully whether sufficient grounds existed for the House to impeach a President.
Investigation of Impeachable Conduct:
Generally speaking the investigation determines whether the Trump has engaged (but not limited to); treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Once the House Judiciary Committee investigates then the committee as a whole will then, by a majority vote, determines that grounds for impeachment do exist. At which point a formal resolution impeaching Trump will be laid on the committee table. This resolution is considered “highly privileged” (meaning it then supersedes all regular House Business) the Resolution sets forth specific allegations of misconduct also known as impeachable offenses. At which point it will be reported out of the Judiciary Committee to the full House via the Speaker of the House.
Judicial Committee Report on Impeachable Offenses:
Once discharged from the Committee - the House Resolution is then debated. Once debate has concluded, the House can “consider the resolution as a whole, or may vote on each article separately”
Sidebar - “The House may vote to impeach even if the House Judiciary Committee does not recommend impeachment”
As you might know a vote to impeach only requires the House vote in a simple majority of those present and voting. Provided a satisfaction of quorum has been established. Should the House votes in the affirmative to impeach, managers are then selected to present the matter to the Senate. One way to explain the “house Impeachment managers” is they in short act as the prosecutor, because impeachment is in fact considered a judicial proceeding.
Senate: “Sole power to try all impeachments”
Again I still maintain that Impeachment may not be the only option to remove Trump. Earlier this week I ruminated on the 466 days left until November 3, 2020 - of the 466 days left (minus 129 days) which includes the 6 week recess x2 + 20 various holidays + Spring/Winter recess. Realistically that gives the House <185 Congressional calendar days to Impeach. I’m not saying it’s warranted - it is. What I am saying is the current House Democrats really haven’t done their job of educating the American Electorate why we should move towards impeachment.
While you're here, throw us a bone.
Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.
Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.