Posted on 12/03/2021 9:07:32 AM PST by Red Badger
Lawyers acting for constitutional law professor John Eastman have picked apart the raison d’etre for the January 6th Congressional committee, as well pointing out the potential for abuse of power and breaches of House rules.
Eastman – a target of the commission – is held up as guilty of insurrection by the political left for having the constitutional opinion that Vice President Mike Pence had no obligation to count ballots for states where political and legal proceedings were underway regarding election fraud.
The fisking of the committee will irk the already enfeebled group of Democrats, fresh off their latest round of embarrassments at the hands of another target: former Trump advisor Stephen K. Bannon.
Lawyer Charles Burnham wrote to committee chairman and violent black nationalist supporter Rep. Bennie Thompson:
We also have several objections to the legal propriety of your subpoena. These objections are important in their own right and as relevant context for Dr. Eastman’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment right. First, your committee lacks a ranking minority member, which makes it impossible to comply with relevant House Rules, including those applicable to subpoenas and depositions. Secondly, your extraordinarily broad subpoena goes far beyond even the most expansive reading of the Committees authorizing resolution in asking for materials bearing no reasonable relation to the events of January 6. Finally, the lack of true minority representation combined with your decision to take testimony in secret proceedings creates an extreme risk of gross unfairness to the subjects of your investigation. As I already stated, these are serious issues, both in their own right and as critical context for Dr. Eastman’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment.
The full letter, which deals with a number of critical flaws with the committee’s existence and understanding of the law, can be read below.
Pointing to critical technical details concerning the creation of committees, Burnham said:
…contrary to consistent historical practice and the express language of the authorizing resolution, none of the members of the J6 committee were appointed after consultation with the minority leader. All of the members were appointed by the Speaker, and all of the staff have been hired by those appointed by the Speaker.
In other words, Democrats pieced a committee together against the rules and under false pretenses in order to persecute their political opposition.
He added:
This Committee’s disregard of House Rules is no mere legal technicality. The lack of meaningful minority representation leaves the majority free to exercise its vast investigative authority unchecked, creating serious potential for abuse. One of its very first acts was to direct social media and telecommunication companies to preserve communications of private citizens, not just those who entered the Capitol on January 6 but a much larger group of those who were in Washington, D.C. simply to exercise their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association and to petition their government for redress of grievances. The letters sent by the committee specifically requested that these companies preserve information about individuals who were listed on permit applications or otherwise involved in organizing, funding, or speaking at the January 5, 2021, or January 6, 2021, rallies in the District of Columbia relating to objecting to the certification of the electoral college vote; and individuals potentially involved with discussions of plans to challenge, delay, or interfere with the January 6, 2021, certification. The letters identified not just metadata, but the content of communications, including all emails, voice messages, text or SMS/MMS messages, videos, photographs, direct messages, address books, contact lists, and other files or other data communications stored in or sent from the account, id. (emphasis added)and all of this without a search warrant based upon probable cause. The threat to First Amendment freedoms and Fourth Amendment rights inherent in such a demand is palpable.
SCRIBD AND PDF LINKS AT SITE.............................
Bttt.
Well, I will say that a request to preserve potentially relevant evidence is much different from actually obtaining that evidence, so I’m not sure that particular privacy objection will get very far.
In short, treasonous acts of war against our people and our Nation.
~Easy
When the new President is able to replace the current Attorney General, then there should be a complete review of the lawlessness that exists at Justice and appropriate malfeasance should be dealt with.
I hope MS Cheney gets schooled, and more, by Eastman. I heard her the other day, sounding so stateslady like, declaring how the committee needed to hear from President Trump - UNDER OATH.
Just, wow!
Well, I will say that a request to preserve potentially relevant evidence is much different from actually obtaining that evidenceEvidence relevant to what exactly? Counselor.
In short. it looked like NO legal protocols were observed.
Frankly, I don’t know how anyone can be surprised. Abuse of power is ugly!
“The U.S. government now poses the greatest threat to our freedoms. More than terrorism, more than domestic extremism, more than gun violence and organized crime, even more than the perceived threat posed by any single politician, the U.S. government remains a greater menace to the life, liberty and property of its citizens than any of the so-called dangers from which the government claims to protect us.”
John W. Whitehead,
The ONLY THING Government ever protects is ITSELF.........................
Pointing to critical technical details concerning the creation of committees.
Ouch walnuts get kicked
Hopefully the new president will do a better job than Trump of picking his attorney general and getting them through the confirmation process. Justice has to be fumigated.
I didn't say that the requests covered relevant evidence. I said potentially relevant evidence. That's a pretty huge difference, and the reason why they could only request preservation rather than production. There's no way to know if they're actually relevant to the subject matter of the investigation unless/until you uncover additional evidence that justifies their production.
In any case, you can quibble over whether the records were even potentially relevant all you wish. The point is that claiming invasion of privacy based solely on an overly broad preservation order is just wrong. The proper objection is that it is too burdensome.
P
Do we even know how many political prisoners does Nancy Pelosi still holds in solitary confinement, without bail and without charges?
.
Hopefully when Donald Trump returns as President, the treasonous Senate will have been purged sufficiently and the Senate confirms the people President Trump actually chooses as cabinet members rather than holding him hostage by only confirming candidates acceptable to the Uniparty which was the case throughout his residency.
Typos were despite checking...bad day..
his Presidency.
Good, America should not tolerate political show trials. As such I am furious with McCarthy for not stripping Cheney and Kinzinger of any and all committee appointments as well as requesting their resignations from the GOP caucus.
Thanks RACPE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.