Federal Law does not apply to Congress-apparently.

 Continuing on from yesterday

 I guess Meatloaf and Louis Anderson are glad they are not around to see this new revelation: The best way to ignore the law is to exempt yourself from it.

Our topic is the absolute abuse of power-and accountability-by the January 6th Committee. Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., was unable to appoint any members of this committee after he was appointed by the House minority leader on Jan. 6. Pelosi, a Democrat from California, blocked McCarthy from appointing Republican members and instead picked her own Gestapo storm troopers to serve on the committee.

Let’s be blunt: we DID expect this particular inquisition.

But this is not a new Development-earlier, a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump turned down an investigation into allegations made by a Capitol rioter that racial justice protesters in Portland were also committing similar crimes against the government.

“Selective prosecution” was claimed by the accused rioter, Garret Miller. Miller pointed to the Department of Justice’s decision not to prosecute mass rioters related to Black Lives Matter (BLM) and anti-fascist (Antifa) rallies in Portland, Oregon, in the summer of 2020.

It was Miller who asked for an evidentiary hearing so that the court could compel discovery. His goal was to explore his claim further and then hold a court hearing in which he could present his “selective prosecution” argument. In short, he wanted additional time. This starting to look like a pattern? 

Nichols denied Miller’s request in a December 21 decision-shocking, I know-although it SHOULD be pointed out that Judge Nichols was originally appointed by Trump.

Speaking of which, since we are time-traveling, there is evidence that Trump actually wanted National Guard troops to make sure things didn’t get out of hand, but that Pelosi’s camp shut the idea down.

Trump’s account, “They took that number. From what I understand, they gave it to the people at the Capitol, which is controlled by [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi. And I heard they rejected it because they didn’t think it would look good. So, you know, that was a big mistake.”

Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller (not the same guy as before), however, said Trump’s crowd estimate was over-the-top exaggeration. “The president’s sometimes hyperbolic, as you’ve noticed,” he told Vanity Fair. “There were gonna be a million people in the street, I think was his expectation.” 

Miller said he explained to Trump that the National Guard would only be dispatched if someone specifically requested it.

It is likely that Trump was referring to a tweet from Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, who said “Capitol Police requested National Guard help prior to January 6th. That request was denied by Speaker Pelosi and her Sergeant-at-Arms.”

A third fly in the orange toupees is the real possibility that the FBI was involved in staging an Agent Provocateur setup (I haven’t trusted the FBI since Vince Foster shot himself in the back of the head 3 times a few decades ago). The FBI, when questioned about the agency’s possible provocative involvement in or with the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, refused to answer any questions during a Tuesday hearing on Capitol Hill.

(It should be noted that when I did a Spell-Check on the above sentence Google kept sending me a message saying “Something went wrong: and then the whole sentence was deleted. No connection, I am sure …)

“How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of Jan. 6?” Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, asked Jill Sanborn, executive assistant director of the FBI’s National Security Branch.

“I can’t go into the specifics of sources and methods,” Sanborn said.

“Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of Jan. 6, yes or no?” Cruz pressed.

“I can’t answer that,” Sanborn said, despite The New York Times revealing that federal agents were among those storming the Capitol in September. Earlier this month, Newsweek revealed the presence of secret commandos with “shoot-to-kill” authority among the “rioters.”

So we are starting to piece together that this was most definitely planned-as was the subsequent “witch-hunt” that is following. In fact, that may have been the whole reason to start back up the “Committee on Un-American/Pro-Trump Activities”

But back to our story: Budowich’s lawyers attempted to get a judicial intervention before JPMorgan handed over all his financial records to the committee, but the timing agreed to by the committee, Lynch, and the bank — documents handed over on Christmas Eve, with notice to Budowich — was not acceptable. It was impossible for him to testify in Washington because he was contacted just two days before arriving. Consequently, JPMorgan gave all of his banking records to the committee without even requesting an extension.

Due to this, Budowich was left with no choice but to sue Speaker Nancy Pelosi and members of the Committee, seeking an emergency injunction against their use of his banking records. The committee and JPMorgan both responded that the entire question was moot because the documents had already been given to them.

This is equivalent to saying that filing “rape” charges is a waste of time, because the illegal act has “already” occurred.

Basically, lawyers for the committee and Loretta Lynch negotiated a scheme whereby JPMorgan notified Budowich that it would be releasing the documents just before Christmas, so that he wouldn’t have time to request a court order, and then argue that the fact that he was “too late” for filing should be used to deny him a hearing. “Moot” was the determination of Budowich’s emergency injunction request, according to the court, since the bank had already supplied the documents, but they then agreed to decide whether the subpoena was legal on its own merits.

In Washington, a federal judge, James Boasberg, appointed by Obama, heard the parties’ briefs on this question. The committee’s use of Budowich’s banking records was enjoined by Judge Boasberg in an oral argument held earlier on Thursday. Nevertheless, the issues raised by the committee’s arguments are chilling, and the case will now be appealed to the Court of Appeals.

You need to pay attention to this:

At the hearing, the committee’s lawyers essentially repeated the same argument they advanced in their legal brief: that there are no legal safeguards to guard against abuse of power imposed on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies that apply to this congressional committee.

It therefore enjoys virtually absolute power.

I don’t think that’s a dramatic overstatement. 

The law on which Budowich is relying is The Right to Financial Privacy Act (“RFPA”), which prohibits any “financial institution, or officers, employees or agent of the financial institution” from “providing to any Government authority access to or copies of, or the information contained in, the financial records of any customer” without first fulfilling those requirements. Among the key requirements is that a “financial institution shall not release the financial records of a customer until the Government authority seeking such records certifies in writing to the financial institution that it has complied with the applicable provisions of this chapter.” 

Budowich’s lawyers argued that the law requires anyone whose financial records are sought to have notice of that attempt and be given sufficient time to challenge it in court:

“Both 12 U.S.C. §§ 3405 (administrative subpoena or summons) and 3408 (formal written request) require that a copy of the subpoena or request “have been served upon the customer or mailed to his last known address on or before the date on which the subpoena or summons was served on the financial institution” together with a formal statutory notice allowing ten (10) days from the date or service or fourteen (14) days from the date of mailing the required notice. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 3405, 3408. Additional provisions of RFPA establish the right of a financial institution customer to challenge a request for their financial records in an appropriate United States District Court, and that proceedings involving such challenges should be completed or decided within seven (7) calendar days of the filing of any Government response. See 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a)-(b).”

Committee members didn’t deny that they didn’t meet these requirements. They just ignored them.

Clearly, they could not argue that, since the plan they created with JPMorgan and its lawyer, Loretta Lynch, was designed to prevent Budowich from obtaining a judicial ruling before his bank records were handed over.

 Instead, the committee’s response is ”they do not have to comply with this law.”

 “The Act restricts only agencies and departments of the United States, and the Select Committee is neither,” the committee’s lawyer contended. 

So, in essence, all I have to do is to rename a CIA Wet works squad to “Health Alteration Committee” and it becomes exempt from any Central Intelligence Laws.

However, the Committee explicitly argued that these safeguards are not only intended to be imposed on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but also intended to exempt Congress from these obligations even when, as here, they are clearly engaged in investigating private citizens for potential crimes.

 “Multiple provisions of the statute underscore that Congress intended ‘Government authority’ to mean an executive branch agency or department,” the committee’s lawyers wrote in a declaration of power staggering in its scope and limitlessness.

In short-the Federal laws do not apply to Congressional Committees-we can do whatever we bloody well please.

Look for part 3 tomorrow.