Writing my Congessman

Feel free to contact your member. Divide your submission into 2 parts.

Smith, Jordan and Comer have been acting in unison in using GRU Agents Smirnoff's information. I have concerns as to how they received this information in the first place and (we must ask) whether they knew where it was coming from. 

When the January 6 Select Committee was early in its investigation, I urged you to refer the matter of the December congressional members meeting with Trump directly to the Ethics Committee for their involvement in the overall conspiracy.

I urge you again to make this referral, adding Smith and Comer.

The speech and debate clause protects these members from examination of their official activities in any other place BUT CONGRESS! It is time for Congress to step up, especially given a possible GRU connection to their recent efforts as well as January 6th. Recall that the December 18, 2020 meeting was full of Russian operatives (Flynn, Giuliani, Byrne and Trump).

Any conduct involving the GRU is likely already under FBI investigation, which is why Jordan is going after the Bidens. Three explanations are possible. 1. Jordan is pre-taliating to make it look like any coming indictments headed his way look like retaliation. 2. Jordan thinks he could leverage a deal to have Biden's troubles go away if Biden calls off investigations of he and his co-conspirators or 3. He is actively pursuing a Moscow agenda.

Hopefully the Smirnoff affair will have the Speaker put Ukraine aid on the table immediately. 

I am sure it is tempting to let DOJ take the lead on GOP aid and comfort to Moscow. I urge you not to wait.

PART 2

Please allow me to restate my proposal for the Ethics Committees of each chamber to expand their purview, possibly as a joint effort, to include investigating presidential disqualification under the 14th Amendment. Please communicate this proposal to the Vice Chair of the Committee and to Leader Jeffries for action when Insurrectionists in the House start resigning or are expelled for that involvement. Ethics should also be empowered to investigate members who participated in January 6. A finding by the Committee should require that a 2/3rds majority be required to retain office (rather than to expell such members). A bipartisan committee like Ethics should be trusted not to abuse this precedent.

Finally, let me comment on the timeline of the afternoon of January 6. This was apparent to me watching events unfold on television, which was a better viewpoint than members of the Select Committee had because you were sheltering from the mob.

When Babbitt was shot and her squad arrested, the air was immediately taken out of the event. Aside from those in active melee with officers, the building started to clear as if by magic. Connie Meeks, who was a member of the Oath keepers stack - indeed the entire stack - melted away. The stack seems to have been timed to see if security had been breeched at the Speaker's lobby and on the Senate side. And then it was gone.

The moment Babbitt was shot and her squad arrested and this was televised is the moment Trump began to cooperate with Meadows in unwinding the insurrection. Given his remarks on the Ellipse on convincing "week Republicans," and finding Democrats hopeless, the opportunity to do this meant breaching the lobby and seeing what the Oath Keepers stack had in their backpacks. Trump demonstrating his knowledge of the plan by referring to it in his speech is not protected speech - it is evidence that he knew what the plan was.

Hanging or convincing Pence was the perfect smoke screen, just like election interference and the perfect phone call were misdirection from the plan to deny (not leverage) the sale of the Javelins in obedience to Putin (which is likely found in the NICE records that Trump was likely trying to hide in his office at Mar O Largo). The quid pro quo was the funding of the Defend the House PAC - and covering the tracks on how the PAC was set up explains why there was so much congressional involvement in January 6.

None of the events were about the election or Trump's ego or ambitions. They were and are about Ukraine. It is all a single narrative, not a series of unrelated events.

Again, the Ethics Committees need to take point on how members were and are involved. For the sake of the people of Ukraine, this cannot wait for the FBI to act first.

Memo to CREW: Arguments did not go well

If your goal is to keep Trump out of office, here is a list of tactics for a way forward:

Play up how many people in "Team Crazy" from Dec 18 2020 meeting are on Team Putin (Trump, Flynn, Byrne, Giuliani).

Amend Electoral Count Act to provide for objection to candidate disqualification while still affirming validity of the vote for that party (making VP Acting President under 20th Amendment).

Advance notion that 20th Amendment, Section 3 implies presidents-elect are covered under 14th Amendment.

Advocate for repeal of OLC memo and associated meme that sitting president cannot be indicted. Reinforcing this gave us insurrection and current campaign. Not for Trump's ego but for obstruction of justice and possibly to please Russian masters.

The answer to the question of whether Trump cannot be obeyed post Jan 6 is that he cannot. Had he succeeded in using violence to overturn the Electoral Count, the rule of law would have demanded disobedience by military officers, civil servants and a denial by Chief Roberts of the Oath of Office. 

If XIV§3 is truly self enforcing, Chief Roberts must take a pass at swearing him in. That should have been a topic in today's argument and briefing.

Press for change in House Rules (Jefferson's Manual) to move XIV§3 objection to swearing in a Representative to before the election of the Speaker.

Forget about hanging Pence. It was never going to happen. It was a diversion that Jan 6 Committee fell for. The real action was breaching the Speaker's lobby door. The Oath Keepers Stack was timed to be ready if it had succeeded. The President's remarks about giving weak Republicans strength shows that breaching the lobby was the heart of the plan and Trump's cooperation with staff and exit if most rioters from the building coinciding with fatal wounding of Babbitt and arrest of her squad shows Trump was in on the actual plan. Any conspiracy with Trump, even if walled off from the violence as the congressional participants will claim, cannot be regarded as protected by immunity if (and only if) Trump is proven to have known the timeline in advance. 2:44 pm, January 6 is the tipping point.

Ethics Committees in each chamber need to have jurisdiction expanded to include Insurrection by presidential candidates and members, with denial of office or expulsion occurring with a Committee finding unless 2/3rds of each house remove the disqualification. January 6 merits a Joint Ethics Committee examination of Trump and members of Congress and Senate. Just having the inquiry under these conditions will cause retirements and resignations.

Indeed, under such a scheme, Trump will end his campaign and no Insurrectionist member will fail to participate. Forcing Trump off the ballot does not prevent faithless electors putting him in. An honest, bipartisan Ethics Committee procedure that he needs super majorities to reverse will have him make his best deal with Smith as soon as Ethics Committee expands its own jurisdiction or Speaker Jeffries goes along (or gets at least 4 Republicans to join him in having any Ethics Committee rule change discharged from Committee).

Time for a gut check. Are you willing to accept a President Haley as the price for getting Trump to take himself off the ballot? Or have Joe step aside for Kamala to run? Some members may be squishy. Don't let them be.

My memo to DOJ on OLC

Please choose the general topic of your message:

Office of Legal Counsel

Your message to the Department of Justice

In light of the OLC memo on indictment of a sitting President's origins in justifying the indictment of Agnew, the dicta in Trump v. Mazars regarding the lack of weight of the memo as law, it's use to not indict then President Trump for fully developed obstruction of justice charges and the desire of Trump to hold office through insurrection and regain office through election as a shield against prosecution, please reconsider and revoke this policy. It is not interference in the election to take away the incentive for a candidate to regain power in order to obstruct justice.

Any magistrate could have easily had their clerk email the presidential security detail to change Trump's protective custody to criminal custody. Indeed, this could happen at anytime now. Because of the existing memo, the narrative has been that Trump could not be arrested or indicted while in office. This narrative is Trump's motivation to seek office. Repealing the memo will defeat that motivation and lead defendent Trump to seek a plea deal with Special Counsel Smith. Not repealing the memo would have the force of providing a president to act in the manner Trump did in January 6, 2021.

Had that memo not existed, there would not have been an insurrection. Trump's Ukrainian misdeeds would likely have not been investigated anyway due to a reticence to not criminalize foreign policy (which is no shield to Trump given Hamdi). The Insurrection and campaign are to obstruct justice, not because of Trump's mental condition or character flaws (which are the meme that even the January 6 Committee and managers of both impeachments fell victim to - and the media still advances).

In Washington, repeating a lie 3 times makes it true. It is time for OLC to defeat this meme by overturning the previous memo for the reasons set out here.