Tony Clark
LightNews LightNews
banner
informative.ink
Tony Clark
@informative.ink
3.7K followers 1.1K following 8.9K posts
Writer. Former senior House staffer, consultant, campaign communications director; NIH legislative analyst, FEMA/NFIP contractor, and ARC/NAVMED volunteer. More than just NARA/presidential libraries. Books in 2026 and beyond: https://www.informative.ink/
Posts Replies Media Videos
informative.ink
*Please* don't spread these false rumors. 🙏🏻

Powell did not rule that *at all*—and does not apply here.

And no, a federal judge cannot "step in." They have no authority.

Only the Speaker, or someone the House votes to approve, may officially administer the oath.

No one else may, nor ever has.
November 11, 2025 at 5:31 PM
informative.ink
Please don't spread these false rumors. Powell did not rule that *at all*—and does not apply here.

And no, a federal judge cannot "step in." They have no authority.

Only the Speaker, or someone the House votes to approve, may officially administer the oath. No one else may, nor ever has.
November 11, 2025 at 5:15 PM
informative.ink
What broke so many, but only enough that they can still recognize the fraud and threat Trump is, but can't recognize the difference between facts and fiction when that fiction makes them feel good and the facts contradict their beliefs?

Who sees *this* 👇 and says, "Yeah, I'm going with that!"?
A quickly and poorly created meme from AI slop that is riddled with easily debunked factual errors, but also "fancy" words confidently stated things that, tothe uncritical eye, may seem somewhat plausible (particularly because it has certain words capitalized, Roman numerals, and the symbol for section) that, along with other shitty, sloppy memes like it, has caused thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands or more—of people to reject plain facts in favor of its lies, because the latter confirms their bias, makes them feel good, and allows them another day or two of keeping the uncomfortable facts at bay.
November 11, 2025 at 3:58 PM
informative.ink
What I see and hear whenever some anonymous douche who's spluttering demonstrably false horseshit in an attempt to "prove" me "wrong" about one of my rigorously researched, solidly documented articles insists they *have* to be right because, they claim, unlike me—wait for it—they're a lawyer:
November 11, 2025 at 9:33 AM
informative.ink
Because it's not possible; this "lawyer" doesn't know what they're talking about.

They're referencing what only applies to the executive branch; if they had actually *read* the relevant statutes, they might be able to see that.

But they're just interested in being "right" (which they're not).
But what about the federal statute that I keep seeing people say allows it, 5 U.S. Code § 3331? No. Title 5 of the U.S. Code is about the executive branch: its organization and agencies, the civil service, and federal employees. It is not about Members of Congress. Section 3331 of title 5 is explicitly—and only—about those executive branch employees in the civil service or uniformed services. Legal experts have said 5 U.S. Code § 2903 allows several kinds of people who are authorized to administer oaths to swear in a Representative-elect; are they wrong? Yes, they are wrong. And if those who falsely claim this are in fact any kind of legal expert, it is not in House precedents and practice. Section 2903 explicitly refers to the oath required in § 3331, and only authorizes its administration—which, again, applies to executive branch employees only. The authorities for the oath for Members of Congress are in Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution, and Title 2 of the U.S. Code. Section 2903 of Title 5 does not govern the House's official oath, and may not be used to circumvent House precedents and practice.
November 11, 2025 at 9:03 AM
informative.ink
This "lawyer" doesn't know anything about federal statutes (nor how to read them); my *profession* was to write & oversee them.

The law they embarrassingly suggest allows judges to swear in explicitly applies only to the executive branch.

I published a FAQ debunking ignorant claims such as theirs:
Legal experts have said 5 U.S. Code § 2903 allows several kinds of people who are authorized to administer oaths to swear in a Representative-elect; are they wrong? Yes, they are wrong. And if those who falsely claim this are in fact any kind of legal expert, it is not in House precedents and practice. Section 2903 explicitly refers to the oath required in § 3331, and only authorizes its administration-which, again, applies to executive branch employees only. The authorities for the oath for Members of Congress are in Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution, and Title 2 of the U.S. Code. Section 2903 of title 5 does not govern the House's official oath, and may not be used to circumvent House precedents and practice. But what about the federal statute that I keep seeing people say allows it, 5 U.S. Code § 3331? No. Title 5 of the U.S. Code is about the executive branch: its organization and agencies, the civil service, and federal employees. It is not about Members of Congress. Section 3331 of title 5 is explicitly—and only—about those executive branch employees in the civil service or uniformed services.
November 11, 2025 at 8:57 AM
informative.ink
article you'll likely cite (and therefore haven't read) isn't "precedent," as it's about federal judges performing *ceremonies* in Members' districts *after* the Speaker has officially administered the oath in the House chamber.
Screenshot of the beginning of an article that many mindlessly claim is "proof" that federal judges have authority to swear in Members of Congress—which, of course they do not and absolutely cannot, being in a different branch—when the second sentence makes it absolutely clear that these ceremonies are held after the representatives had taken the official oath in Washington when the Congress began. It reads: In regions around the country, members of Congress turned to federal judges to take public oaths of office in their home districts. The representatives earlier had taken official oaths in Washington when the current session began. Some examples of where the legislative and judicial branches came together to publicly induct House representatives into the 113th Congress:
November 11, 2025 at 7:10 AM
informative.ink
"Do I got anything in my teeth?"
Two Highland cows stand in a bright green pasture beneath a vivid blue sky streaked with soft white clouds. The closer cow, a reddish-brown one with long, shaggy fur and curved horns, faces the camera calmly. Behind it, a lighter tan cow stands further back, its horns extending outward as it gazes off to the side. The landscape is open and gently rolling, with trees along the horizon.
November 11, 2025 at 2:10 AM
informative.ink
"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful."
A shaggy, reddish-brown Highland cow stands in a grassy field with gently rolling hills and leafless trees in the background. Its long fur drapes down its sides and legs, and it faces the camera slightly turned to the right, displaying its wide, curved horns that point upward. The sky above fades from turquoise to golden near the horizon, suggesting early morning or late afternoon light.
November 11, 2025 at 2:10 AM
informative.ink
"Who'r'u??"
A brown and white cow stands close to a wire fence, its nose and face filling the foreground. It has a curly white forehead, a pink identification tag on one ear, and a blue tag on the other. It's caught mid-chew, and the mouth is askew, as if in a mildly startled expression. The background shows a green pasture dotted with grazing cattle under a bright blue sky streaked with white and pink clouds in the warm light of late afternoon.
November 11, 2025 at 2:10 AM
informative.ink
"'sup?"
Three Highland cows stand in a fenced pasture at sunset. In the foreground, a light brown cow with long, shaggy fur and wide curving horns faces the camera. Farther back, a dark brown cow stands near the center, and a smaller white one grazes in the distance. The sky glows with streaks of gold, orange, and blue above the rolling landscape, and tall trees frame the horizon behind the wooden fence.
November 11, 2025 at 2:10 AM
informative.ink
"I don't trust this one, Earl."

"I'ma comin', Fred."
Three Highland cows graze in a green pasture at sunset. The nearest, a reddish-brown cow with long shaggy fur, stands close to the camera, its curved horn extending over its forehead. Behind it, a lighter tan cow approaches from the left, while another darker brown one grazes in the middle distance. The sky fades from golden near the horizon to deep blue above, and the warm light casts a soft glow over the rolling fields and distant trees.
November 11, 2025 at 2:10 AM
informative.ink
"Evenin' everybody."

"Norm!"
A light tan Highland cow with long shaggy fur stands in a grassy field, viewed from a low angle that emphasizes its size and curved horns extending outward and upward. A few strands of grass hang from its mouth as it faces slightly toward the camera. The ground is covered with dry grass and scattered leaves, and the background shows rolling hills and bare trees under a blue sky with bits of white clouds.
November 11, 2025 at 2:10 AM
informative.ink
Ron Swanson voice: "You have exactly three seconds to take the photo. Three. After that I will eat you."
A reddish-brown Highland cow stands tall in a lush green pasture, facing the camera with its long, curved horns extending outward and upward. Its shaggy coat catches the soft light of a partly cloudy sky filled with layers of blue, purple, and pale gold. Behind the cow, the landscape rolls gently with clusters of trees and open fields stretching into the distance.
November 11, 2025 at 2:10 AM
informative.ink
Timeline cleanse:

For the first year of the pandemic, I lived on a cow farm.

I took these on an iPhone SE, so they're not spectacular or anything, but I hope this short Cows thread brings some joy, or at least a distraction.

First up: Bashful

"Aw, I ain't handsome 'r nothin'... Am I though?"
Two shaggy Highland cows stand in a grassy field beneath a partly cloudy blue sky. The nearer cow, reddish-brown with long hair that drapes over its eyes, faces slightly downward toward the camera, its horns curving upward and outward. In the background, a lighter tan cow stands farther away, also facing forward, against a backdrop of rolling hills and trees on the horizon.
November 11, 2025 at 2:10 AM
informative.ink
A quick note about Pluribus, Vince Gilligan's new AppleTV series starring Better Call Saul breakout star Rhea Seehorn: it's worth a look-in.

I've only seen the first two eps (they drop weekly now) so I can't give it a full "stay with it" recommend yet.

But it's different enough to warrant a look.
A round petri dish filled with golden-yellow agar shows a smiley face drawn into its surface. A hand at the upper right holds a cotton swab, as if finishing the curved mouth. The background is bright yellow, and the word “PLUR1BUS” appears below in bold black letters, with the numeral one replacing the letter “I.”
November 11, 2025 at 1:24 AM
informative.ink
At the risk of making your brain cry more, here are National Journal's rankings of the most-to-least liberal House Members for 2011. While there are many reasons during and subsequent to my time in the House that make me hesitant to tout their names, I worked for two of those tied for first place. 😐
2011 U.S. House A total of 105 votes were used to develop the 2011 House vote ratings. The following tables display the full ratings of how each of the 435 members of the U.S. House voted in 2011[8] National Journal Liberal Vote Rankings - U.S. House, 2011 [hide] Rank + Member District = Party • Score + Economic + Social = Foreign = 1 Michael Capuano Mass.-8 Democratic 93.3 92 80 88 1 William Lacy Clay Mo.-1 Democratic 93.3 92 80 88 1 Judy Chu Calif.-32 Democratic 93.3 92 80 88 1 Hansen Clarke Mich.-13 Democratic 93.3 92 80 88 1 Keith Ellison Minn.-5 Democratic 93.3 92 80 88 1 Donna Edwards Md.-4 Democratic 93.3 92 80 88 1 Bob Filner Calif.-51 Democratic 93.3 92 80 88 1 Raul Grijalva Ariz.-7 Democratic 93.3 92 80 88 1 Mike Honda Calif.-15 Democratic 93.3 92 80 88
November 10, 2025 at 8:54 PM
informative.ink
Cop-Video Dude blocked me, but I'm curious about why he keeps up his demonstrably false, definitively debunked, unearned-confidence-touted baseless gibberish—that has and continues to misinform/mislead, weeks later. For the likes? Can't admit he was wrong? Still believes, embarrassingly, he's right?
T. Greg Doucette @gregdoucette.bsky.social Don't have a Bloomberg sub so not sure of the thesis, but there is no legal requirement saying only the Speaker can swear in new House members. Once the race is certified by the state, Grijalva can go to anyone qualified to administer oaths and get the job done September 28, 2025 at 11:17 AM 6 reposts 42 likes T. Greg Doucette @gregdoucette.bsky.social Once the race is certified by Arizona, anyone authorized to administer oaths can swear in Grijalva. Could be a judge, could be another MoC, could be a plain notary public. My understanding is the certification happens on October 14th bsky.app/profile/pood... Poodle stan @poodlestan.bsky.so... • 1mo Is speaker Johnson the only one who can swear in rep-elect Adelita Grijalva? Can someone else do it, the house clerk, a federal judge? October 7, 2025 at 7:59 AM T. Greg Doucette @gregdoucette.bsky.social Once the results are certified by whatever state authority does it, yes The statewide canvass is October 14th. I assume certification will be that day. Rs aren't swearing Grijalva in early, which is shitty but not illegal. But there's nothing they can do once her results are certified October 10, 2025 at 12:22 PM 14 reposts 1 quote 64 likes 1 save T. Greg Doucette @gregdoucette.osky.social Literally anyone able to administer oaths can swear in a Congressperson after that date. Even a random notary public pulled off the street October 10, 2025 at 12:22 PM 6 reposts 46 likes 1 save
November 10, 2025 at 7:54 AM
informative.ink
Slurring and drifting in and out of sleep, aides to Trump say he seems to have said that he next wants to pardon Tommy Bailey for having burped.
Scene from the film It's a Wonderful Life, when young Tommy Bailey tugs on George's coattail repeatedly saying, "Scuse me!" until George angrily turns and asks, "Excuse you for what?!" Tommy looks up at him and answers, "I burped."
November 10, 2025 at 4:53 AM
informative.ink
Why don't you tell me one instance of when you think it happened, Steve?

But before you do, is your "source" the article from the US Courts about public *ceremonies* that some Members choose to hold *after* the Speaker officially swears them in inside the House chamber? 🤔
In regions around the country, members of Congress turned to federal judges to take public oaths of office in their home districts. The representatives earlier had taken official oaths in Washington when the current session began. Some examples of where the legislative and judicial branches came together to publicly induct House representatives into the 113th Congress:
November 10, 2025 at 1:17 AM
informative.ink
No, he repeatedly and falsely claimed that it didn't have to be the Speaker, that there is no legal requirement that it be the Speaker, that after certification anyone who may administer oaths—even a notary—could do it.

He is demonstrably wrong on all of it.

And he makes a common mistake all bad
Kevin Carson E = = @kevincarson1.bsky.social • 1mo IIRC, didn't @gregdoucette.bsky.social say she could be sworn in by competent state officials? ① 2 2 © 11 T. Greg Doucette @gregdoucette.bsky.social • 1mo Once the results are certified by whatever state authority does it, yes The statewide canvass is October 14th. I assume certification will be that day. Rs aren't swearing Grijalva in early, which is shitty but not illegal. But there's nothing they can do once her results are certified ≥ 15 © 64 T. Greg Doucette @gregdoucette.bsky.social + Follow Literally anyone able to administer oaths can swear in a Congressperson after that date. Even a random notary public pulled off the street October 10, 2025 at 12:22 PM 6 reposts 46 likes 1 save 2 £ 6 0 46. T. Greg Doucette @gregdoucette.osky.social • 1mo → Replied to T. Greg Doucette Once the race is certified by Arizona, anyone authorized to administer oaths can swear in Grijalva. Could be a judge, could be another MoC, could be a plain notary public. My understanding is the certification happens on October 14th bsky.app/profile/pood... Poodle stan @poodlestan.bsky.social • 1mo Is speaker Johnson the only one who can swear in rep-elect Adelita Grijalva? Can someone else do it, the house clerk, a federal judge? ≥ 12 © 59 刀企… T. Greg Doucette @gregdoucette.bsky.social • 1mo → Replied to Kevin M. Kruse Don't have a Bloomberg sub so not sure of the thesis, but there is no legal requirement saying only the Speaker can swear in new House members. Once the race is certified by the state, Grijalva can go to anyone qualified to administer oaths and get the job done ⑦ 2 0 42
November 9, 2025 at 8:41 PM
informative.ink
On the same day as it always is: January 3. I'm sorry, but how is this even a question?

If you have a different article, please share it. The only article I have seen about that is the one that clearly says in its second sentence that it was ceremonial; I can't imagine one says otherwise.
January 3, 2013: Speaker Boehner officially administers the oath to the 113th Congress in the House chamber, the only way any of them may be sworn in unless the House votes to approve someone else to administer it, somewhere else. The Speaker doesn't even have the authority to administer the oath outside of the House chamber, while the House is in session, unless the House votes to grant the speaker that authority. Reverse photograph from the House Press Gallery of the 113th Congress being officially sworn in.
November 9, 2025 at 8:20 PM
informative.ink
does not apply here at all. It narrowly held the House could not exclude based on a new qualification it created.

Powell did not limit the House's exclusive constitutional, non-justiciable authority to judge the elections, returns, and qualifications of its Members, save a constitutional violation.
A vertical flowchart titled “Does Powell v. McCormack Apply?” in bold black text at the top. The layout is clean and modern, with rounded boxes, clear arrows, and a mix of black, light blue, green, and red colors. At the top, a large black rectangle labeled START HERE begins the flow. From there, a green downward arrow leads to a series of light blue question boxes stacked vertically: “Are you a U.S. Representative-elect?” If No, a red arrow branches right to a red box reading “Powell does not apply.” If Yes, a green arrow leads downward. “Has your state certified your election?” If No, another red arrow to the right points to “Powell does not apply.” If Yes, the green arrow continues downward. “Has the Clerk of the House received your credentials?” If No, a red arrow to “Powell does not apply.” If Yes, the green arrow continues. “Has the House voted to exclude you based on a qualification other than those the Constitution enumerates?” If No, a red arrow to “Powell does not apply.” If Yes, the green arrow points down to a bright green rounded rectangle that reads: “Powell does apply.” The red “No” branches all lead to the same red box on the right margin, while the green “Yes” path continues straight downward through the center. At the bottom right corner, in small gray text, is the credit: lastcampaign.substack.com. A rectangular flowchart titled “Is Your Administration of the Oath of Office to a Duly Elected U.S. Representative-elect Valid?” in large black text across the top. The design uses bold typography, rounded boxes, and a clean layout with black, blue, green, and red color coding. At the very top, a black box labeled START HERE begins the flow. A black downward arrow leads to the first light blue question box: “Are you the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives?”* (Footnote below reads: “or an elected—not appointed—Speaker pro tempore.”) If YES, a green arrow continues downward. If NO, a red arrow branches right to a blue box asking: “Has the House voted to approve your administering the oath?” If NO, the red arrow continues to a bright red box reading “The oath is not valid.” If YES, the flow proceeds downward to another blue box asking: “Has the House voted to authorize you to administer the oath somewhere other than in the House?” If NO, a red arrow leads to “The oath is not valid.” If YES, a green arrow leads to “The oath is valid.” Returning to the left (main) YES path: “Are you in the House chamber?” If YES, a green arrow continues downward. If NO, the red path connects to the same right-side decision about authorization to administer the oath elsewhere. “Is the House in session?” If YES, a bright green rectangle at the bottom center reads “The oath is valid.” If NO, a red arrow leads to “The oath is not valid.” At the bottom right, the red box “The oath is not valid.” visually balances the green “The oath is valid.” on the left. In small gray text in the lower right corner: lastcampaign.substack.com
November 9, 2025 at 8:09 PM
informative.ink
Being a "real lawyer" doesn't auto-grant expertise in Congress. And @gregdoucette has already shown his ignorance by repeatedly claiming the absolute bullshit that "Even a random notary public pulled off the street” may do this.

5 USC § 2903 is about the executive branch, not Congress.

And Powell
Legal experts have said 5 U.S. Code § 2903 allows several kinds of people who are authorized to administer oaths to swear in a Representative-elect; are they wrong? Yes, they are wrong. And if those who falsely claim this are in fact any kind of legal expert, it is not in House precedents and practice. Section 2903 explicitly refers to the oath required in § 3331, and only authorizes its administration-which, again, applies to executive branch employees only. The authorities for the oath for Members of Congress are in Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution, and Title 2 of the U.S. Code. Section 2903 of title 5 does not govern the House's official oath, and may not be used to circumvent House precedents and practice. 5 U.S. Code § 2903 - Oath; authority to administer U.S. Code Notes Authorities (CFR) prev | next (a) The oath of office required by section 3331 of this title may be administered by an individual authorized by the laws of the United States or local law to administer oaths in the State, District, or territory or possession of the United States where the oath is administered. 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office U.S. Code Notes prev next An individual, except the President elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This section does not affect other oaths required by law. (Pub. L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 424.) But what about the federal statute that I keep seeing people say allows it, 5 U.S. Code § 3331? No. Title 5 of the U.S. Code is about the executive branch: its organization and agencies, the civil service, and federal employees. It is not about Members of Congress. Section 3331 of title 5 is explicitly-and only-about those executive branch employees in the civil service or uniformed services.
November 9, 2025 at 8:09 PM
informative.ink
For reference, since Follow Farmer blocked me.
Jacqs @fooyo02.bsky.social No need to be harsh. Seriously. November 9, 2025 at 11:00 AM
November 9, 2025 at 7:19 PM