Tony Clark
@informative.ink
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/
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.
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
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.
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.
If they shut it down without a clear set of demands; if they cave and reopen quickly to avoid being "blamed"; if they abandon any strategy as the shutdown drags on and they lose their nerve, fracturing—it would be better if they hadn't shut it down, which will have harmed millions, for nothing.
Don’t You Dare: Why Democrats Must Shut It Down
open.substack.com/pub/therickw...
open.substack.com/pub/therickw...
November 11, 2025 at 5:11 PM
Reposted by Tony Clark
The thing about something like this. This was dictated by some functionary. Some young idealogue sitting in the clean sterile offices of Heritage; someone who's never known hardship nor real service, suffering nor trail; someone whose had a comfortable, privileged life. Some young ignorant racist
November 9, 2025 at 10:31 AM
The thing about something like this. This was dictated by some functionary. Some young idealogue sitting in the clean sterile offices of Heritage; someone who's never known hardship nor real service, suffering nor trail; someone whose had a comfortable, privileged life. Some young ignorant racist
Unfortunately, *none* of that's true.
Powell didn't hold that, and doesn't apply here.
And despite the false rumors, no federal judge may (nor ever has) officially administer the oath without the House voting to approve it. Without such a vote, it may only be the Speaker. bsky.app/profile/info...
Powell didn't hold that, and doesn't apply here.
And despite the false rumors, no federal judge may (nor ever has) officially administer the oath without the House voting to approve it. Without such a vote, it may only be the Speaker. bsky.app/profile/info...
Springboarding off of Andy's good example:
• Powell *did* hold the House couldn't *add* a qualification not in the Constitution, then exclude a Rep.-elect *because* of it.
• Powell *didn't* hold the House could *never* vote to exclude a Rep.-elect who meets the constitutional qualifications.
• Powell *did* hold the House couldn't *add* a qualification not in the Constitution, then exclude a Rep.-elect *because* of it.
• Powell *didn't* hold the House could *never* vote to exclude a Rep.-elect who meets the constitutional qualifications.
November 11, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Unfortunately, *none* of that's true.
Powell didn't hold that, and doesn't apply here.
And despite the false rumors, no federal judge may (nor ever has) officially administer the oath without the House voting to approve it. Without such a vote, it may only be the Speaker. bsky.app/profile/info...
Powell didn't hold that, and doesn't apply here.
And despite the false rumors, no federal judge may (nor ever has) officially administer the oath without the House voting to approve it. Without such a vote, it may only be the Speaker. bsky.app/profile/info...
Unfortunately, none of that's true.
Powell didn't hold that, and doesn't apply here.
And despite the false rumors, no federal judge may (nor ever has) officially administer the oath without the House voting to approve it. Without such a vote, it may only be the Speaker. bsky.app/profile/info...
Powell didn't hold that, and doesn't apply here.
And despite the false rumors, no federal judge may (nor ever has) officially administer the oath without the House voting to approve it. Without such a vote, it may only be the Speaker. bsky.app/profile/info...
Springboarding off of Andy's good example:
• Powell *did* hold the House couldn't *add* a qualification not in the Constitution, then exclude a Rep.-elect *because* of it.
• Powell *didn't* hold the House could *never* vote to exclude a Rep.-elect who meets the constitutional qualifications.
• Powell *did* hold the House couldn't *add* a qualification not in the Constitution, then exclude a Rep.-elect *because* of it.
• Powell *didn't* hold the House could *never* vote to exclude a Rep.-elect who meets the constitutional qualifications.
November 11, 2025 at 4:29 PM
Unfortunately, none of that's true.
Powell didn't hold that, and doesn't apply here.
And despite the false rumors, no federal judge may (nor ever has) officially administer the oath without the House voting to approve it. Without such a vote, it may only be the Speaker. bsky.app/profile/info...
Powell didn't hold that, and doesn't apply here.
And despite the false rumors, no federal judge may (nor ever has) officially administer the oath without the House voting to approve it. Without such a vote, it may only be the Speaker. bsky.app/profile/info...
Unfortunately, none of that is true.
Powell didn't hold that, and doesn't apply here.
And despite the false rumors, no federal judge may (nor ever has) officially administer the oath without the House voting to approve it. Without such a vote, it may only be the Speaker.
bsky.app/profile/info...
Powell didn't hold that, and doesn't apply here.
And despite the false rumors, no federal judge may (nor ever has) officially administer the oath without the House voting to approve it. Without such a vote, it may only be the Speaker.
bsky.app/profile/info...
Springboarding off of Andy's good example:
• Powell *did* hold the House couldn't *add* a qualification not in the Constitution, then exclude a Rep.-elect *because* of it.
• Powell *didn't* hold the House could *never* vote to exclude a Rep.-elect who meets the constitutional qualifications.
• Powell *did* hold the House couldn't *add* a qualification not in the Constitution, then exclude a Rep.-elect *because* of it.
• Powell *didn't* hold the House could *never* vote to exclude a Rep.-elect who meets the constitutional qualifications.
November 11, 2025 at 4:17 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is true.
Powell didn't hold that, and doesn't apply here.
And despite the false rumors, no federal judge may (nor ever has) officially administer the oath without the House voting to approve it. Without such a vote, it may only be the Speaker.
bsky.app/profile/info...
Powell didn't hold that, and doesn't apply here.
And despite the false rumors, no federal judge may (nor ever has) officially administer the oath without the House voting to approve it. Without such a vote, it may only be the Speaker.
bsky.app/profile/info...
That is, in and of itself, a good thing, and should have happened weeks ago.
November 11, 2025 at 3:59 PM
That is, in and of itself, a good thing, and should have happened weeks ago.
officially administer the oath.
It's also wrong about "precedent": no federal judge, nor anyone other than the Speaker, has ever done this unless the House voted to approve it; it's not possible.
This flowchart and article below it might help explain the facts and reasons:
bsky.app/profile/info...
It's also wrong about "precedent": no federal judge, nor anyone other than the Speaker, has ever done this unless the House voted to approve it; it's not possible.
This flowchart and article below it might help explain the facts and reasons:
bsky.app/profile/info...
Since so many folks—including "legal experts"—insist on claiming that so many others (judges, notaries, their drinking buddies) may officially administer the oath of office to a Rep.-elect, here's a flow chart to help you understand if you, yourself may swear in someone newly elected to the House:
November 11, 2025 at 3:49 PM
officially administer the oath.
It's also wrong about "precedent": no federal judge, nor anyone other than the Speaker, has ever done this unless the House voted to approve it; it's not possible.
This flowchart and article below it might help explain the facts and reasons:
bsky.app/profile/info...
It's also wrong about "precedent": no federal judge, nor anyone other than the Speaker, has ever done this unless the House voted to approve it; it's not possible.
This flowchart and article below it might help explain the facts and reasons:
bsky.app/profile/info...
That's AI slop, and it's wrong.
It uses the fallacy argument from silence ("Constitution doesn't specify…).
In fact, the Constitution does specify that the House has exclusive authority to judge its elections and to set its own rules; only the Speaker or someone the House votes to approve may
It uses the fallacy argument from silence ("Constitution doesn't specify…).
In fact, the Constitution does specify that the House has exclusive authority to judge its elections and to set its own rules; only the Speaker or someone the House votes to approve may
November 11, 2025 at 3:49 PM
That's AI slop, and it's wrong.
It uses the fallacy argument from silence ("Constitution doesn't specify…).
In fact, the Constitution does specify that the House has exclusive authority to judge its elections and to set its own rules; only the Speaker or someone the House votes to approve may
It uses the fallacy argument from silence ("Constitution doesn't specify…).
In fact, the Constitution does specify that the House has exclusive authority to judge its elections and to set its own rules; only the Speaker or someone the House votes to approve may
Once sworn in, Rep.-elect Grijalva's signature on the discharge petition will indeed force a Floor vote, but that will be just one in a series of hurdles that will likely end in legislative failure, unfortunately:
bsky.app/profile/info...
bsky.app/profile/info...
What would happen with DOJ’s “Epstein files” if Rep.-elect Grijalva were to be officially sworn in? A 🧵.
TL/WR: It wouldn't release them nor materially increase the chances they’ll be released.
• Upon taking office Grijalva would presumably sign the discharge petition Rep. Massie (R-KY) has filed.
TL/WR: It wouldn't release them nor materially increase the chances they’ll be released.
• Upon taking office Grijalva would presumably sign the discharge petition Rep. Massie (R-KY) has filed.
November 11, 2025 at 3:29 PM
Once sworn in, Rep.-elect Grijalva's signature on the discharge petition will indeed force a Floor vote, but that will be just one in a series of hurdles that will likely end in legislative failure, unfortunately:
bsky.app/profile/info...
bsky.app/profile/info...
What would happen with DOJ’s “Epstein files” if Rep.-elect Grijalva were to be officially sworn in? A 🧵.
TL/WR: It wouldn't release them nor materially increase the chances they’ll be released.
• Upon taking office Grijalva would presumably sign the discharge petition Rep. Massie (R-KY) has filed.
TL/WR: It wouldn't release them nor materially increase the chances they’ll be released.
• Upon taking office Grijalva would presumably sign the discharge petition Rep. Massie (R-KY) has filed.
November 11, 2025 at 3:26 PM
What would happen with DOJ’s “Epstein files” if Rep.-elect Grijalva were to be officially sworn in? A 🧵.
TL/WR: It wouldn't release them nor materially increase the chances they’ll be released.
• Upon taking office Grijalva would presumably sign the discharge petition Rep. Massie (R-KY) has filed.
TL/WR: It wouldn't release them nor materially increase the chances they’ll be released.
• Upon taking office Grijalva would presumably sign the discharge petition Rep. Massie (R-KY) has filed.
November 11, 2025 at 3:25 PM
What would happen with DOJ’s “Epstein files” if Rep.-elect Grijalva were to be officially sworn in? A 🧵.
TL/WR: It wouldn't release them nor materially increase the chances they’ll be released.
• Upon taking office Grijalva would presumably sign the discharge petition Rep. Massie (R-KY) has filed.
TL/WR: It wouldn't release them nor materially increase the chances they’ll be released.
• Upon taking office Grijalva would presumably sign the discharge petition Rep. Massie (R-KY) has filed.
November 11, 2025 at 3:24 PM
What would happen with DOJ’s “Epstein files” if Rep.-elect Grijalva were to be officially sworn in? A 🧵.
TL/WR: It wouldn't release them nor materially increase the chances they’ll be released.
• Upon taking office Grijalva would presumably sign the discharge petition Rep. Massie (R-KY) has filed.
TL/WR: It wouldn't release them nor materially increase the chances they’ll be released.
• Upon taking office Grijalva would presumably sign the discharge petition Rep. Massie (R-KY) has filed.
November 11, 2025 at 3:12 PM
Oh, and after I saw @twoofsix.bsky.social shit-talking me to others about my having blocked them rather than engage with them on a legislative question, I unblocked them and engaged with them on that question.
Then they blocked me. 😀
Then they blocked me. 😀
November 11, 2025 at 3:09 PM
Oh, and after I saw @twoofsix.bsky.social shit-talking me to others about my having blocked them rather than engage with them on a legislative question, I unblocked them and engaged with them on that question.
Then they blocked me. 😀
Then they blocked me. 😀
Unfortunately, opening the government does not open the Epstein files. Rep.-elect Grijalva's will be the 218th signature, and that will allow the measures to be voted on in the House.
But will begin a series of hurdles that will likely end in legislative failure: bsky.app/profile/info...
But will begin a series of hurdles that will likely end in legislative failure: bsky.app/profile/info...
What would happen with DOJ’s “Epstein files” if Rep.-elect Grijalva were to be officially sworn in? A 🧵.
TL/WR: It wouldn't release them nor materially increase the chances they’ll be released.
• Upon taking office Grijalva would presumably sign the discharge petition Rep. Massie (R-KY) has filed.
TL/WR: It wouldn't release them nor materially increase the chances they’ll be released.
• Upon taking office Grijalva would presumably sign the discharge petition Rep. Massie (R-KY) has filed.
November 11, 2025 at 3:06 PM
Unfortunately, opening the government does not open the Epstein files. Rep.-elect Grijalva's will be the 218th signature, and that will allow the measures to be voted on in the House.
But will begin a series of hurdles that will likely end in legislative failure: bsky.app/profile/info...
But will begin a series of hurdles that will likely end in legislative failure: bsky.app/profile/info...
And you could have then brought up the FBI—Food and Beverage Institute. 😀
November 11, 2025 at 3:01 PM
And you could have then brought up the FBI—Food and Beverage Institute. 😀
That account does that a lot. I'm surprised they didn't pretend they were a culinary expert; elsewhere, they pretend to be an attorney. 🙄
November 11, 2025 at 9:19 AM
That account does that a lot. I'm surprised they didn't pretend they were a culinary expert; elsewhere, they pretend to be an attorney. 🙄
(To answer your specific question in relation to the "lawyer" making these false claims: the nuance that's missing is that they don't know what they're talking about, and clearly have no experience or expertise in House practice and precedent, as those of us who are recognized experts do.)
November 11, 2025 at 9:15 AM
(To answer your specific question in relation to the "lawyer" making these false claims: the nuance that's missing is that they don't know what they're talking about, and clearly have no experience or expertise in House practice and precedent, as those of us who are recognized experts do.)
to the election, the qualifications, or the returns, and no question that the Rep.-elect has won.
The House—not the state—makes the final determination of its elections.
Only if there is unanimous consent, the House may vote to approve someone else to administer the oath elsewhere.
/end
The House—not the state—makes the final determination of its elections.
Only if there is unanimous consent, the House may vote to approve someone else to administer the oath elsewhere.
/end
November 11, 2025 at 9:14 AM
to the election, the qualifications, or the returns, and no question that the Rep.-elect has won.
The House—not the state—makes the final determination of its elections.
Only if there is unanimous consent, the House may vote to approve someone else to administer the oath elsewhere.
/end
The House—not the state—makes the final determination of its elections.
Only if there is unanimous consent, the House may vote to approve someone else to administer the oath elsewhere.
/end
process would of course be invalid, as it would attempt to usurp and bypass the House's exclusive constitutional authority.
If a Rep.-elect cannot travel to the Capitol (illness, etc.) the House may vote to approve someone else administering the oath somewhere else—but only if there are no contests
If a Rep.-elect cannot travel to the Capitol (illness, etc.) the House may vote to approve someone else administering the oath somewhere else—but only if there are no contests
November 11, 2025 at 9:14 AM
process would of course be invalid, as it would attempt to usurp and bypass the House's exclusive constitutional authority.
If a Rep.-elect cannot travel to the Capitol (illness, etc.) the House may vote to approve someone else administering the oath somewhere else—but only if there are no contests
If a Rep.-elect cannot travel to the Capitol (illness, etc.) the House may vote to approve someone else administering the oath somewhere else—but only if there are no contests