LOTF: An American Political Roleplay (116th Congress)

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

Representative Crawford Clay
R|TX-4

---

"Nay."

[Jovuistan]

Representative Phillip Crawford
[Democratic - 12th District of Kentucky]
{Speaker Pro Tempore of the House of Representatives}

"With all votes tallied the motion passes. The House will proceed to vote on An Act to Establish a Better Reentry for Formerly Incarcerated Americans. The Clerk will call the roll."

[Gordano and Lysandus]

Representative Phillip Crawford
[Democratic - 12th District of Kentucky]
{Speaker Pro Tempore of the House of Representatives}

"With all votes tallied the motion passes. The House will proceed to vote on An Act to Establish a Better Reentry for Formerly Incarcerated Americans. The Clerk will call the roll."

Representative Caroline Simone
[Democratic - 12th District of the State of New York]
{Speaker of the United States House of Representatives} [NOT PRESIDING]

"Aye."

Representative Katherine Edwards
[Republican - 3rd District of the State of Georgia]

"No."

[Louisianan]

Representative Phillip Crawford
[Democratic - 12th District of Kentucky]
{Speaker Pro Tempore of the House of Representatives}

"With all votes tallied the motion passes. The House will proceed to vote on An Act to Establish a Better Reentry for Formerly Incarcerated Americans. The Clerk will call the roll."

United States House of Representatives
Representative Linda Lazare
[Democratic - 7th District of the State of Texas]

"Aye."

[New Cobastheia]

Representative Phillip Crawford
[Democratic - 12th District of Kentucky]
{Speaker Pro Tempore of the House of Representatives}

"With all votes tallied the motion passes. The House will proceed to vote on An Act to Establish a Better Reentry for Formerly Incarcerated Americans. The Clerk will call the roll."

Representative Kathleen Nez
[Democratic - Arizona's 7th District]
[Assistant Speaker of the House of Representatives]

"Aye!"

---

Representative Chip Renfus
[Republican - Mississippi’s 4th District]

"Nay!"

[Madrinpoor]

Representative Alexander Santiago
[Democratic - 27th District of Florida

"Aye!"

[Gordano and Lysandus]

The Acting President Pro Tempore of the Senate
[Republican - Somewhere]
{Acting President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate}

"Hearing no objections, the Combating Online Predators and Scams Act will be taken up. Senator Sullivan of Alaska has the floor."

[Concerned American Workers]

---

Francince Sullivan (D-AK)
Senate Floor

---

The elder Alaskan took the floor.

"There is a new threat to Americans...an online threat. Predators are preying on our young and our elders, stalking them and employing scams to rob them of their money. And unlike other criminal professions, our honest police officers are unable to secure law and order in the wild West of the internet. So let's direct government to intervene, let us support law enforcement, let us help Americans stay protected. This is an issue affecting Alaskans but also Californians, also Missourians, and even here in D.C. I ask this Senate to move forward with this act and offer a chance to protect Americans online, from our children to our grandparents."

An Act to Combat Online Predators and Prevent Scams Targeted at Senior Americans

Nickname: Combating Online Predators and Scams Act
Sponsor: Francine Sullivan (D-AK)
House Co-Sponsors: Felix Holt (D|VA-10)
Senate Co-Sponsors: Gordon Callahan Jr. (D-AL)

Overview: There is a widespread issue in the United States regarding online predators stalking and preying on Americans, particularly younger Internet users. Likewise, senior citizens have increasingly become targets of scams. These are widespread issues and crimes that must be addressed and studied in order to deter their continuance. It is this Congress’ duty to protect Americans and thus this Act will be a first step towards combating online predators and scams.

Section I - Definitions:

a) Online Predator - A person or group of people who commit the act of interstate stalking, as defined by Chapter 110A of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2261A.

b) Senior Scams - A scheme or plan used to deliberately trick or mislead older people for some benefit to the perpetrator, often monetary.

Section II - Provisions:

a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), if the victim of an online predator(s) is under the age of 18 years, the maximum imprisonment for the offense is 5 years greater than the maximum term of imprisonment otherwise provided for that offense in Chapter 110A of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2261A. This amended section shall henceforth be referred to as "Enhanced penalty for stalkers of children."

b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply to a person who violates Section 2261A if the person is subject to a sentence under section Chapter 110A of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2261(b)(5); and the person is under the age of 18 at the time the offense occurred; or the victim of the offense is not less than 15 nor more than 17 years of age and not more than 3 years younger than the person who committed the offense at the time the offense occurred.

c) No later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report to Congress, which shall include an evaluation of Federal, Tribal, State, and local efforts to enforce laws relating to stalking; and identify and describe those elements of such efforts that constitute the best practices for the enforcement of such laws. This report shall be issued as the Report on Best Practices Regarding Enforcement of Anti-Stalking Laws.

d) There is established a Senior Scams Prevention Advisory Group and thus referred to in this Act as the “Advisory Group”. The Advisory Group shall be composed of stakeholders such as the following individuals or the designees of those individuals: the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission; the Attorney General; the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection; representatives from each of the following sectors, including trade associations, to be selected by Federal Trade Commission: retail, gift cards, telecommunications, wire-transfer services, senior peer advocates, consumer advocacy organizations with efforts focused on preventing seniors from becoming the victims of scams, financial services, including institutions that engage in digital currency, prepaid cards; a prudential regulator, as defined by the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5481); the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; and any other Federal, State, or local agency, industry representative, consumer advocate, or entity, as determined by the Federal Trade Commission.

e) A member of the Advisory Group shall serve without compensation in addition to any compensation received for the service of the member as an officer or employee of the United States, if applicable. The Advisory Group shall collect information on the existence, use, and success of educational materials and programs for retailers, financial services, and wire-transfer companies, which may be used as a guide to educate employees on how to identify and prevent scams that affect seniors. This guide shall include useful information: for retailers, financial services, and wire transfer companies for the purpose described in paragraph (f); for training for employees on ways to identify and prevent senior scams; for best practices for keeping employees up to date on current scams; for the most effective signage and placement in retail locations to warn seniors about scammers’ use of gift cards, prepaid cards, and wire transfer services; for suggestions on effective collaborative community education campaigns; for available technology to assist in identifying possible scams at the point of sale; and for other information that would be helpful to retailers, wire transfer companies, financial institutions, and their employees as they work to prevent fraud affecting seniors.

f) Based on the required studies and guides in paragraph (e), the Advisory Group shall identify inadequacies, omissions, or deficiencies in those educational materials and programs for the categories in paragraph (e) and their execution in reaching employees to protect older adults; and create model materials, best practices guidance, or recommendations to fill those inadequacies, omissions, or deficiencies that may be used by industry and others to help protect older adults from scams. The Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall make the materials or guidance created by the Federal Trade Commission described in this paragraph and paragraph (e) publicly available; and encourage the use and distribution of the materials created under this subsection to prevent scams affecting seniors by governmental agencies and the private sector.

g) The Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act (34 U.S.C. 21711(c)(2)) is amended so that the Federal Trade Commission must provide relevant information and updates of newly created materials, guidance, or recommendations of the Senior Scams Prevention Advisory Group established under paragraph (e) and (f) of this Act; any relevant views or considerations made by members of the Advisory Group that were not included in the Advisory Group’s model materials or considered an official recommendation by the Advisory Group; the Advisory Group’s findings about senior scams and industry educational materials and programs; and any recommendations on ways stakeholders can continue to work together to reduce scams affecting seniors in an issued Report from the Senior Scams Prevention Advisory Group.

This bill is then honorably presented to the United States House of Representatives for consideration in order to protect both young and old Americans from novel crimes; to improve the United States Law; and is backed by Senator Francine Sullivan on September 9th, 2019.
Do Not Remove: 1337

[Gordano and Lysandus]

The Acting President Pro Tempore of the Senate
[Republican - Somewhere]
{Acting President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate}

"The Senate will proceed to questioning on the bill."

[Concerned American Workers]

---

Agatha Cragin (R-ME)
Senate Floor

---

"I move to end questioning."

[Bruke]

---

Agatha Cragin (R-ME)
Senate Floor

---

"I move to end questioning."

Minority Leader Volek: “Seconded.”

[Alozia]

United States House of Representatives
Representative Julia Piotrowska
[Democratic - Illinois' 5th congressional district]

"Aye."

[Gordano and Lysandus]

The Acting President Pro Tempore of the Senate
[Republican - Somewhere]
{Acting President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate}

"Without objection, the questioning period is ended and the floor is open for motions and debate."

[Concerned American Workers]

---

Agatha Cragin (R-ME)
Senate Floor

---

"I move to vote on the COPS Act."

[Jovuistan]

Representative Phillip Crawford
[Democratic - 12th District of Kentucky]
{Speaker Pro Tempore of the House of Representatives}

"With all votes tallied, the bill passes to be sent to the United States Senate for consideration. The Speaker will now call up the Resolution of Contempt from Representative Ibrahim Simpson of California against Michael Jones, Attorney General of the United States. Representative Simpson from California has the floor."

[Sanabel]

House Floor

The Judiciary chairman stood and solemnly took the floor.

“The House Committee on the Judiciary is recommending that Attorney General Jones is held in contempt of Congress,” he said frankly.

“Months ago, the Committee on the Judiciary learned for the first time that the Department of Justice made decisions regarding the Midwest Massacre Case without proper communication necessary for oversight responsibilities, we issued a routine subpoena to the Attorney General, after which point we held a hearing.

The hearing was held with the non-partisan, straightforward purpose of providing Attorney General Jones with the opportunity to articulate his reasoning for directing the prosecution to drop all but one charge against former Senator Hawthorne- that remaining charge being misuse of public office- in layman’s terms, the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. However, this purpose was not achieved during the hearing deliberations. Instead, the Attorney General worked with the Judiciary Committee’s minority members to obstruct and deflect. The Attorney General made a number of conflicting and concerning statements, and made a number of unfounded accusations which border on conspiracy theory.

After this hearing, a few facts are clear. Namely, the Attorney General dropped charges before the case has come before a judge, let alone a jury. And the Attorney General dropped the charges before a plea bargain or evidence bargain was formalized, a practice which I have never seen in my long legal career, outside of cases involving blatant corruption on the side of the prosecution. These conclusions were reached not through explicit testimony, but deduction by Committee members.

Most of the facts of the situation remain unclear. Members of the committee, and the American people were not told what evidence or deal former Senator Hawthorn and his counsel offered the prosecution. Members of the committee and the American people were also not told how former Senator Sharansky’s crimes differed from those committed by former Senator Hawthorne, outside of hyperbole and gross generalizations. From the position of the Committee, it is apparent the Attorney General create a pre-trial agreement with the former Senator in an unofficial manner abnormal and exceptional to the standards of the Department of Justice.

Based on these actions, this body must hold the Attorney General in contempt. It is not appropriate for the top law enforcement official of this country to obstruct oversight, an important aspect of our system of checks and balances. I would advise that once this resolution passes, the Attorney General appear before Congress once again to clarify his actions and statements to clear his name from the shroud of corruption and playing favorites.”

Official Name: Resolution that the United States House of Representatives Find Michael Jones, United States Attorney General, In Contempt of Congress for a Refusal to Comply with Congressional Oversight of an Ongoing Investigation by the United States Department of JusticeNickname: Resolution of Contempt

Sponsors: Representative Simpson, Representative Nez, Representative Faulhaber

Overview: The United States House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Judiciary and Chairman Simpson, having considered recent hearings and historic precedent, recommends this body to hold Attorney General Michael Jones in contempt. The reasoning for this is straightforward. The Committee held a routine hearing to carry out its duty of investigative and judicial oversight regarding the case known as the "Midwest Massacre," and issued a subpoena for the Attorney General to provide necessary information therein. The Attorney General failed to provide information necessary to proper oversight, including but not limited to reasoning for charges being dropped against former Senator Hawthorne, why no formal pre-trial agreement was drafted in a move that is considered highly unusual for the Department of Justice, and why Congress has been entirely uninformed on actions taken since the charges were announced.

Section 1: Authority and Purpose
An important corollary to the powers expressly granted to Congress by the Constitution is the implicit responsibility to perform rigorous oversight of the Executive Branch. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized this Congressional power on numerous occasions. For example, in McGrain v. Daugherty, the
Court held that “the power of inquiry--with process to enforce
it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. . . . A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change, and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information--which not infrequently is true--
recourse must be had to others who do possess it.'' Further, in Watkins v. United States, Chief Justice Warren wrote for the
majority: "The power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad.'' Both the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), which directed House and Senate Committees to “exercise continuous watchfulness'' over Executive Branch programs under their jurisdiction, and the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510), which authorized committees to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution'' of laws, codify the oversight powers of
Congress.

This precedent, in addition to the precedent established in the Resolution to Hold (Not) Eric Holder in Contempt, clearly establishes the responsibility and authority for the Committee on the Judiciary to take action against the sitting Attorney General.

Section 2: Breakdown in Oversight

The Committee on the Judiciary is aware of very limited information regarding the case known as the “Midwest Massacre.”

The committee is aware that the offices of Senators Hawthorne and Sharansky were raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the direction of the Attorney General. The pair were charged with bribery, malfeasance, misconduct, destruction of evidence, lying to Congress, and witness tampering. Evidence suggests it is likely that both Senators did so knowingly and in collaboration with former registered agricultural lobbyist Vye Agra.

Following this, the Department of Justice failed to make any information regarding the progress of the case available to the Committee on the Judiciary. It shocked the members of the Committee when the Attorney General announced through the outlet FOX News that the Department of Justice intended to drop all but one charge against now-former Senator Hawthorne.

This brazenly disregarded established norms and precedent for judicial oversight. This left the Committee on the Judiciary with a number of questions and concerns. These included the question of which charges were dropped and why, the question of why charges were not dropped against former Senator Sharansky. It is also unclear if the Attorney General acted unilaterally, or if either now-former President Wolf, President Tawney, or any cabinet members were aware of or were involved with these actions.

Section 3: Subpoena

(The text of the subpoena of the Attorney General is attached)

Section 4: Obstruction and Non-Compliance

The Attorney General was present at the hearing, following the terms of his subpoena. However, the Attorney General failed to provide information necessary to oversight. Responses were marked by slander, empirically false claims, and attempts to shift responsibility for the case from the Department of Justice to the United States House of Representatives, which was highly abnormal. Moreover, responses raised further questions, after it was implied that charges were dropped as part of an informal pre-trial agreement, which is unprecedented and in the history of the Department of Justice for such a high-profile case.

Therefore, based on the actions of obstruction and non-compliance, as well as precedent laid out in the Resolution of Contempt Against (Not) Eric Holder, it is historically responsible and legally necessary to hold the sitting Attorney General in contempt.

This bill is then honorably presented to the United States House of Representatives for consideration in order to hold the sitting Attorney General in contempt in order to improve the United States Law and is backed by Representative Simpson on (present date)

Do Not Remove: 1337

[Jovuistan]

Representative Phillip Crawford
[Democratic - 12th District of Kentucky]
{Speaker Pro Tempore of the House of Representatives}

"The floor is open to questions."

[Concerned American Workers]

---

John Logan Ruler (R-IA-4)
House Floor

---

"Congressman, is this a witch hunt against an honest administration to help protect members of Congress who may be involved in corruption?"

[Concerned American Workers]

---

Torrie Volker (R-MO)
Senate Floor

---

"I second the motion.

[Gordano and Lysandus]

The Acting President Pro Tempore of the Senate
[Republican - Somewhere]
{Acting President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate}

"Without objection, the Senate will now vote on the Combating Online Predators and Scams Act. The Clerk shall call the roll."

[The Orion Islands]

Senator Colbert: "Mr. President, I vote aye!"
Colbert passes a note to all Senators.

If any one of you vote against this bill, the other side will make sure that the people of your state know you support criminals.

[Concerned American Workers]

---

Torrie Volker (R-MO)
Senate Floor

---

"Aye."

---

Agatha Cragin (R-ME)
Senate Floor

---

"Aye."

---

Francine Sullivan (D-AK)
Senate Floor

---

"Aye!"

[Bruke]

The Acting President Pro Tempore of the Senate
[Republican - Somewhere]
{Acting President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate}

"Without objection, the Senate will now vote on the Combating Online Predators and Scams Act. The Clerk shall call the roll."

Volek: “Aye.”

[Jovuistan]

Senator Richard Slater
[Republican - Arkansas]

"Aye."

[Gordano and Lysandus]

Senator Rafael Navarro
[Democratic - State of California]

"Aye."

Senator Augusta Merriam
[Republican - State of New Hampshire]

"Aye."