Solution for Determining Who are Congressional Witnesses?

If Monica Showalter is correct, that sending letters to Congressional Committee Members on a matter before the committee can be prosecuted for perjury, that suggests a quick solution to most of these judicial committee allegations.

In a court of law, the cause of action is started with a complaint that outlines the basic facts: who, what, when, where, and how law was violated. The defendant then has a chance to address these allegations simply to identify the issues in dispute.

So I would simply suggest that the Judicial Committee for all future allegations against a judicial nominee that a letter describing any legal or ethical violations at least meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a Complaint. At that point, the world is on notice about what she is alleging. The letter would only be accepted if it was addressed to the Chair and Ranking Committee Member. That would invoke the law. The correspondent has some skin in the game (see Nasim Taleb's book of the same name for details on why that is important).

If they are not willing to go to jail for gross lies, we should not have to suffer their potentially libelous claims as if they were true. If they are telling the truth or telling the story with a good faith belief that it is true, there is no risk of jail.

Scurrilous lies are not a basis for Congressional, Judicial, or Executive investigation or action. Failing to take a risk of perjury is a necessary first step to avoid the risk of wasting time on what could turn out to be scurrilous lies.

Why Comey memos should be released

This is very simple. Byron York has written well about it. He hits one point that is really the key.

If the memo supposes to be proof of Trump's obstruction of justice, who is the proper investigator?

The special counsel is a member of the executive branch with special dispensation from following normal protocols. As such, it is proper to investigate where conflicts of interest lie. The problem with the appointment process is that it ignores the Constitution. The president vice-president and federal judges are immune from prosecution while in office. A grand jury has no jurisdiction, no matter what court precedent would do to twist this fact.

So the House of Representatives is the proper grand jury for these immunized officers. So if the House demands access to evidence, the special counsel should respond as he would to a grand jury making such a demand.

This is simple. Occum's Razor simple. To create other arguments and stillborn claim Constitutional compliance only results in farce. Is this political? See Andrew McCarthy's book on that subject. Spoiler alert: yes, it is inherently and intentionally political.

So the House should vote a resolution ordering the Special Counsel to deliver the memos. Failure to comply should be met with an immediate Contempt of Congress citation and defunding of Mueller's office for violation of the Constitution.

Publius of the Federalist Papers expected the branches to defend their own privileges, not be a mere lapdog to the Supreme Court and the judiciary. Court precedent is irrelevant. Speaker Ryan needs to stand up and defend his committee chairs more aggressively. These votes need to be scheduled immediately. If there are concerns about national security, those can be address by procedures set forth in the House resolution and contempt citation.