Tony Clark
LightNews LightNews
banner
informative.ink
Tony Clark
@informative.ink
3.7K followers 1.1K following 9K posts
Writer. Former senior House staffer and campaign communications director, NIH legislative analyst, FEMA/NFIP contractor. Writing about government oversight, Congress, HHS, NARA, presidential libraries. Books in 2026 and beyond: https://www.informative.ink/
Posts Replies Media Videos
informative.ink
November 13, 2025 at 3:23 PM
informative.ink
"... except attributions."
From: Deepak Chopra! Sent: 7/29/2016 1:12:10 PM To: jeffrey E. [jeevacation@gmail.com] Subject: Re: Importance: High Roman poet whose name I forget - " Nothing human is foreign to me." Deepak Chopra 2013 Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92009
November 13, 2025 at 5:52 AM
informative.ink
Could follow farmers who don't know how Congress works please give me one day of not spreading misinformation? Just one day off, please?

Both the House and Senate must pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act and the president must sign it in order for it to become law.

The post below is not true.
CLERK ITSENTIOUSE Of REPRESENTATIVES Motion to Discharge a Committee from the Consideration of a Resolution = To the Clerk of the House of Representatives: Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XV, I, Thomas Massie, move to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H.Res. 581) entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 185) to advance responsible policies, which was referred to said committee July 15th, 2025, in support of which motion the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives affix their signatures, to 119th CONGRESS 1st Session H. RES. 581 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 185) to advance responsible policies. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 15, 2025 Mr. Massie (for himself and Mr. Khanna) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules RESOLUTION Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 185) to advance responsible policies. Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 185) to advance responsible policies. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute specified in section 4 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
November 13, 2025 at 3:37 AM
informative.ink
Well, there it is.
From. Sent: To: Subject: jeffrey E. [jeevacation@gmail.com] 8/23/2018 3:16:47 PM Kathy Ruemmier Re: NYTimes: Donald Trump's High Crimes and Misdemeanors you see, iknow how dirty donald is. my guess is that non lawyers ny biz people have no idea. what it means to have your fixer flip On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Kathy Ruemmler > wrote: It makes no difference whether it was his money. Issue is failure to disclose. Plus, fact that he has lied his ass off about it makes clear that he knew it was illegal. On Aug 23, 2018, at 11:03 AM, jeffrey E. <jcevacation@gmail.com> wrote: only he outs theart anhat at hering to the indie en vas it ise. th rund he also said he good mine sure his seras insed an an i talk instal stare soday incites how On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Kathy Ruemmler 1 Here's a story from The New York Times that I thought you'd find interesting: h> wrote: The principled case for impeachment is clear. What's missing is the courage. Read More... Get The New York Times on your mobile device
November 13, 2025 at 2:49 AM
informative.ink
So for those of you scoring at home, 11,261 Americans have served as Representatives in the U.S. House since 3/4/1789.

Number sworn in to office by the Speaker or someone the House voted to approve: 11,261

Number sworn in by literally anyone else, including a random notary pulled off the street: 0
Screenshot of an October 10, 2025 blue sky post from a lawyer and social media personality Greg Doucette, which reads: T. Greg Doucette @gregdoucette.bsky.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 1:22 PM 6 reposts 46 likes T. Greg Doucette @gregdoucette.bsky.social No need to sue, she can go to literally any official authorized to administer oaths under federal law or Arizona state law. Any judge, any notary public, etc October 10, 2025 at 1:37 PM 1 repost 10 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... • 14d 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 8:59 AM
November 13, 2025 at 2:20 AM
informative.ink
Famous notary public Mike Johnson administers the oath of office in the House chamber to now-Representative Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ).

cc: @gregdoucette.bsky.social
Screen capture of the two-image shot on C-SPAN of Johnson swearing in Grijalva in the House chamber, the only one who may do so, and the only place he may do it, unless the House votes to approve otherwise.
November 13, 2025 at 12:06 AM
informative.ink
It is.
NO. 218. REPRESENTATIVE Adelita S. Grijalva STATE Arizona DISTRICT 07 PARTY Democratic SIGNED DATE November 12th, 2025
November 12, 2025 at 9:49 PM
informative.ink
(I don't have Photoshop) 😐
(And apologies to Mike Myers and Nancy Travis)
Poorly done satire of the poster for the 1993 film So I Married an Axe Murderer; the heads of Nancy Travis and Mike Myers, who face each other holding hands (she with an axe behind her back, he with a bouquet of flowers) are replaced by Trump and a blonde woman wearing a MAGA hat. The title on the poster reads So I Elected an Axe Murderer.
November 12, 2025 at 6:08 PM
informative.ink
This exchange may seem "normal," but for a chat app that has never directly addressed this issue with me, no matter how much I push it—politely, plaintively, aggressively, vulgarly—this was surprising.

In earlier tests, it apologized, promised to follow my preferences, etc., but hasn't said this:
Screenshot of part of a chat with ChatGPT, after it ignores my explicit instruction in a question to only answer yes or no and provide additional context for which it took significant time to consider and research and then display. Mine is the first in a back-and-forth series of two each why the fuck do you waste so much of my time You're right — I should have just answered "yes." that's not what I asked you just now. I asked you why you waste my time Because I added unnecessary context instead of giving the direct yes-or-no answer you asked for. [the chat continues, with me first again] then I have to ask you why Because my default behavior is to provide context to ensure accuracy, even when it isn't wanted - which wastes your time when you've made it clear you want only direct answers. you're saying that you are programmed to provide context even when the user who is paying for you to perform the service has expressly and repeatedly told you it isn't wanted Yes. [the chat concludes, with me first again] that's fucked up You're right. and you can't change that No.
November 12, 2025 at 4:24 AM
informative.ink
So as not to spoil it for those who've not yet had the singular pleasure of enjoying The Good Place, I'll just say that after everything else, this bullshit was the final straw that made me come to the same conclusion Eleanor did in this scene. 👇

Holy motherforking shirtballs. I'm already here.
November 12, 2025 at 12:04 AM
informative.ink
What is ***wrong*** with people?

Do you think Trump has the Resolute Desk flown back and forth with him from the White House to Mar-a-Lago?

Have we finally cracked Star Trek transporters?

🤦‍♂️

Here's Trump *at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office* just days ago, ignoring the man who fainted.
Trump standing at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office on November 7 while others attend to the man who fainted and media are ushered out by staffers. Obviously, the desk at Mar-a-Lago is a replica, like several presidential library museums and many other private citizens who have purchased such replicas over the years.
November 12, 2025 at 12:00 AM
informative.ink
Much, much worse was my first look at the "Medias Touch Network" YT channel. Holy shit.

Seriously: WTF?? It's like an LLM vomited Leftist versions of the National Enquirer, Newsmax, TMZ, and Perez Hilton all rolled into a click-farming grifter operation to lure justifiably angry but gullible folks.
A screenshot of a dozen unhinged, obviously sensationalized, clearly unreliable bullshit that is so demoralizing I have no energy to continue a better description. It's the Meias Touch Network; either you know what I'm talking about or you don't understand what I'm talking about. This is all I can muster. See description in first image. See description in first image. See description in first image.
November 11, 2025 at 11:40 PM
informative.ink
You know, @sheriw60.bsky.social has a point!

Here are numerous photos of me on the Floor of the US House of Representatives and on the dais in House Committe hearing rooms with my trust janitor mop, broom, and dustpan.

I'd write federal statutes and oversee the law in between mopping and sweeping.
A collage of eight screenshots from C-SPAN congressional broadcasts shows former senior Congressional staffer Anthony Clark on the House Floor and in and committee sessions over several years. Each panel captures a different moments; janitorial tools have been added.
November 11, 2025 at 10:43 PM
informative.ink
Anatomy of a Shitposter's Lie

• Shitposter (don't take my word for it; see bio 👇) @record-guy59.bsky.social copy-posts a lie

• I politely ask them not to spread it; show it's a lie

• Shitposter—like all brain-dead shitposters—says "uR wRoNg 'cAuSe gOgGLe sAiD iT wUz tRu"

• Shitposter blocks me
record-guy59.bsky.social @record-guy59.bsky.social 6.7K followers 13.6K following 11.2K posts Retired progressive, woke, dog, cat and nature lover, music aficionado, collector of musical media and vintage electronics. Life long Steelers and Pittsburgh sports fan. University of Pittsburgh alum. I almost forgot relentless anti MAGA shit record-guy59.bsky.social @record-guy59.bsky.social + Follow If Mike Johnson doesn't seat Grijalva now, a judge will. In Powell v. McCormack, SCOTUS ruled that an elected member cannot be denied a seat, meaning a judge could step in to administer the oath. Johnson is no longer the gatekeeper. November 11, 2025 at 10:22 AM @ Everybody can Tony Clark @informative.ink • 4h - Replied to a blocked post *Please* don't spread these false rumors..a 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. START HERE Are you U.S. Representative-elect? YES Has your state certified your election? NO - NO - Has the Clerk of the House received your credentials? YES Has the House voted to exclude you based on a qualification other than those the Constitution enumerates? YES NO - NO - Is YOUR ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE TO A DULY ELECTED U.S. REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT VALID? START HERE Are you the Speaker* of the U.S. House of Representatives? YES Are you in the House chamber? YES Is the House in session? YES The oath is valid. NO NO NO Has the House voted to approve your administering the oath? NO Has the House voted to authorize you to administer the oath somewhere other than in the House? NO *or an elected-not appointed-Speaker pro tempore 1 The oath is not valid. lastcampaign.substack.com record-guy59.bsky.social @record-guy59.bsky.social you are wrong. Any federal judge can administer the oath, A simple Google search will prove it. November 11, 2025 at 2:01 PM 1 like
November 11, 2025 at 10:22 PM
informative.ink
So @chibole.bsky.social is keeping these lies posted hours after being informed they're lies.

I guess that account's bio should read:

Farming for followers, grifting with purpose
Big on disinformation, bigger on ignoring the truth
CHIBOLE @chibole.bsky.social 12.8K followers 10.9K following 2.5K posts Fighting for fairness, living with purpose Big on freedom, bigger on compassion * Animals remind me what matters
November 11, 2025 at 9:50 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 5:31 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