Mark
Meadows Lawsuit: Subpoenas Invalid Because
Pelosi Constituted Select Committee In Violation
of House Authorizing Resolution
“Speaker Pelosi
failed to appoint members consistent with the
authorizing resolution of the Select Committee…
Thus, the Select Committee as it currently
stands—and stood at the time it issued the
subpoenas in question—has no authority to
conduct business because it is not a duly
constituted Select Committee. Chairman
Thompson’s subpoenas are invalid and
unenforceable.”
The “Select Committee”
of Democrats and two “Republicans” to investigate
the January 6 riot is an abuse of power but
typical for how efficient Democrats are at
weaponizing their congressional power.
Mark Meadows, former
Trump Chief of Staff, has been held in contempt by
the Democrat-controlled House for failing to
turnover all documents subpoeanaed by the
Committee, sending a referral for prosecution.
U.S. House votes
222-208 to hold former White House Chief of Staff
Mark Meadows in criminal contempt of Congress for
defying a subpoena issued by the Jan. 6 committee.
The referral now heads to the Justice
Department.
WATCH: https://t.co/vKC7CBa7G0 pic.twitter.com/m2yEX0KlrI
The
politically corrupted DOJ likely will oblige under
the unfit rule of Merrick Garland.
Meadows has turned
over many documents, but is fighting the subpoena
and has filed a Complaint in federal court in
D.C. It’s a fascinating read.
Here are some key
segments. It starts by noting that the Committee is
seeking a wholesale fishing expedition through
Meadow’s electronic communications – that’s what I
mean by the Committee being an abuse of power.
1. Plaintiff, the
Honorable Mark Meadows (“Mr. Meadows”), a private
citizen who previously served as a Member of
Congress and subsequently as Chief of Staff to the
President of the United States, brings this
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to
invalidate and prohibit the enforcement of two
overly broad and unduly burdensome subpoenas from
a select committee of the U.S. House of
Representatives (the “Select Committee”) issued in
whole or part without legal authority in violation
of the Constitution and laws of the United States.
2. The Select
Committee wrongly seeks to compel both Mr. Meadows
and a third party telecommunications company to
provide information to the Select Committee that
the Committee lacks lawful authority to seek and
to obtain. The Select Committee acts absent any
valid legislative power and threatens to violate
longstanding principles of executive privilege and
immunity that are of constitutional origin and
dimension. Without intervention by this Court, Mr.
Meadows faces the harm of both being illegally
coerced into violating the Constitution and having
a third party involuntarily violate Mr. Meadows
rights and the requirements of relevant laws
governing records of electronic communications.
Only this Court can prevent these grave harms.
3. For months,
Mr. Meadows has consistently sought in good faith
to pursue an accommodation with the Select
Committee whereby it could obtain relevant,
non-privileged information. While the Committee
and Mr. Meadows engaged over a period of time in
an effort to achieve such reasonable
accommodation, the Select Committee adamantly
refused to recognize the immunity of present and
former senior White House aides from being
compelled to appear before Congress and likewise
refused to recognize a former president’s claims
of Executive Privilege and instructions to Mr.
Meadows to maintain such privilege claims in
addressing the Select Committee’s inquiries.
4. The current
President of the United States, through counsel,
purported to waive the former president’s claims
of privilege and immunity.
5. As a result,
Mr. Meadows, a witness, has been put in the
untenable position of choosing between conflicting
privilege claims that are of constitutional origin
and dimension and having to either risk
enforcement of the subpoena issued to him, not
merely by the House of Representatives, but
through actions by the Executive and Judicial
Branches, or, alternatively, unilaterally
abandoning the former president’s claims of
privileges and immunities. Thus, Mr. Meadows turns
to the courts to say what the law is.
But it’s not just
about overbreadth of the subpoena. Meadows
challenges the validity of the committee as
constituted by Pelosi.
Here’s the pertinent section from
the Complaint:
A. The
subpoenas are not validly issued by a duly
authorized committee.
91. The
composition of the House Select Committee to
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United
States Capitol is governed by Section 2 of H. Res.
503. Section 2(a) states “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.” H.
Res. 503 117th Cong. (2021).
92. Speaker
Pelosi has appointed only nine members to the
Select Committee: seven Democrats and two
Republicans. None of these members was appointed
from the selection of five GOP congressman put
forth by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
93. Authorized
congressional committees have subpoena authority
implied by Article I of the Constitution. McGrain
v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927). The Select
Committee, however, is not an authorized
congressional committee because it fails to
comport with its own authorizing resolution, House
Resolution 503.
94. Congress’
failure to act in accordance with its own rules is
judicially cognizable. Yellin v. United States,
374 U.S. 109, 114 (1963). This is particularly
significant where a person’s fundamental rights
are involved.
95. Speaker
Pelosi failed to appoint members consistent with
the authorizing resolution of the Select
Committee. Pelosi has appointed only nine members
of Congress to serve on the Select Committee;
whereas the authorizing resolution instructs the
Speaker “shall” appoint thirteen members. H. Res.
503 § 2(a), 117th Cong. (2021).
96. Further, of
those nine members Speaker Pelosi has appointed,
none of them was appointed after consultation with
the minority member, as is required by the
authorizing resolution. H. Res. 503 § 2(a), 117th
Cong. (2021).
97. Thus, the
Select Committee as it currently stands—and stood
at the time it issued the subpoenas in
question—has no authority to conduct business
because it is not a duly constituted Select
Committee. Chairman Thompson’s subpoenas are
invalid and unenforceable.
98. Chairman
Thompson derives the authority to issue subpoenas
solely from § 5(c)(6) of the Select Committee’s
authorizing statute, but this authority is
qualified, not absolute. The Select Committee
chairman may not order the taking of depositions
without consultation with the ranking minority
member of the Select Committee.
99. As the Select
Committee has no ranking minority member, Chairman
Thompson failed to make the requisite consultation
before issuing the subpoena that compelled Mr.
Meadows to appear for a deposition. The ordering
of Mr. Meadows’ deposition runs afoul of the
Select Committee’s authorizing resolution, making
it invalid and unenforceable.
There are other
challenges raised in the lawsuit, including:
B. The subpoenas are not issued to further a
valid legislative purpose.
C. The Select Committee seeks to use an
excessively broad third-party subpoenas to
obtain
personal cell phone data.
C. The Select Committee cannot obtain
records under the Verizon Subpoena consistent
with the
Stored Communications Act [my note: repeat lettering
of “C” in original]
D. The subpoenas violate executive
privilege.
E. The Select Committee violates
longstanding testimonial immunity for senior
advisors
to the
President.
E. Compelled production under the Verizon
Subpoena would violate the Fourth
Amendment.
F. Compelled production of cell phone data
under the Verizon Subpoena would violate
the First
Amendment.
As you can tell,
the subpoena is a sweeping attempt to get Meadow’s
electronic communications and phone records. This is
a political attack. (read
more)
