Quote:The feud that has simmered for months between Congress and the Justice Department erupted this week into a cage match. That’s because the House is homing in on the goods.

Until this week, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and fellow institutionalists at the department had fought Congress’s demands for information with the tools of banal bureaucracy—resist, delay, ignore, negotiate. But Mr. Rosenstein took things to a new level on Tuesday, accusing House Republicans of “threats,” extortion and wanting to “rummage” through department documents. A Wednesday New York Times story then dropped a new slur, claiming “Mr. Rosenstein and top FBI officials have come to suspect that some lawmakers were using their oversight authority to gain intelligence about [Special Counsel Bob Mueller’s ] investigation so that it could be shared with the White House.”

Mr. Rosenstein isn’t worried about rummaging. That’s a diversion from the department’s opposite concern: that it is being asked to comply with very specific—potentially very revealing—demands. Two House sources confirm for me that the Justice Department was recently delivered first a classified House Intelligence Committee letter and then a subpoena (which arrived Monday) demanding documents related to a new line of inquiry about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Trump investigation. The deadline for complying with the subpoena was Thursday afternoon, and the Justice Department flouted it. As the White House is undoubtedly monitoring any new congressional demands for information, it is likely that President Trump’s tweet Wednesday ripping the department for not turning over documents was in part a reference to this latest demand.

Republicans also demand the FBI drop any objections to declassifying a section of the recently issued House Intelligence Committee report that deals with a briefing former FBI Director James Comey provided about former national security adviser Mike Flynn. House Republicans say Mr. Comey told them his own agents did not believe Mr. Flynn lied to them. On his book tour, Mr. Comey has said that isn’t true. Someone isn’t being honest. Is the FBI more interested in protecting the reputations of two former directors (the other being Mr. Mueller, who dragged Mr. Flynn into court on lying grounds) than in telling the public the truth?

We can’t know the precise motivations behind the Justice Department’s and FBI’s refusal to make key information public. But whether it is out of real concern over declassification or a desire to protect the institutions from embarrassment, the current leadership is about 20 steps behind this narrative. Mr. Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe —they have already shattered the FBI’s reputation and public trust. There is nothing to be gained from pretending this is business as usual, or attempting to stem continued fallout by hiding further details.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-jus...mail_share

There is no clearer writer, more capable of making sense of political chaos, than Kimberly Strassel.

(05-04-2018 09:13 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  There is no clearer writer, more capable of making sense of political chaos, than Kimberly Strassel.

She cuts Rosy a new one.

Bureaucrats recognize four levels of classification of information--the usual confidential, secret, and top secret, plus a fourth, embarrassing to the agency. And there's only one of those hills they will die on.

Quote:It’s hard to have any faith in the necessity of the more than 300 redactions in the House Intel report, most of which the Republican committee members insist are bogus and should be removed. On every occasion that Justice or the FBI has claimed material must be withheld for the sake of national security or continuing investigations, it has later come out that the only thing at stake were those institutions’ reputations.

Yeah, that. CYA Lyin' FBI.

(05-04-2018 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bureaucrats recognize four levels of classification of information--the usual confidential, secret, and top secret, plus a fourth, embarrassing to the agency. And there's only one of those hills they will die on.

Owl, you've said this many times before. Please, keep repeating it over and over because it's the truth.

We live in interesting times. The FBI and DOJ dirty as hell and half the country is glad about it. Will the constitution survive?

(05-04-2018 09:25 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  We live in interesting times. The FBI and DOJ dirty as hell and half the country is glad about it. Will the constitution survive?

Nothing short of amazing, is it?

If the country ever needed a example of who represents team over country, who represents tyranny over freedom and justice, they've got their examples today. To look the other way and shrug one's shoulders when the DOJ and FBI are weaponized to defeat one's political opponents is nothing short of disgraceful and shameful.

Unfortunately, they lack the shame gene.

(05-04-2018 09:25 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  We live in interesting times. The FBI and DOJ dirty as hell and half the country is glad about it. Will the constitution survive?

It may have to relocate from DeeCee.

I think she left one point off. The Paul Manafort's money laundering case. The House members who are going after the documents are pro-Trump supporters who are Partisian on this issue. The issue is if the documents about Manafort go to those Trump buddies? It may not be right for justice if they give Trump those documents, and that Trump passes what Mueller have on Manafort to manafort's lawyers to fight back. If we have done half the things that Trump and them have done? We would be in a prison cell for years on end.

The House has closed its investigation. Why, after the fact, are they demanding to know what the special counsel knows?

I can see some argument on keeping the letter to Mueller on his scope non-public. But at the same time, why should there be any secrets in what he is investigating? He is a specially appointed counsel.

(05-04-2018 09:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The House has closed its investigation. Why, after the fact, are they demanding to know what the special counsel knows?

Perhaps because their oversight function is not limited to a single investigation?

(05-04-2018 09:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The House has closed its investigation. Why, after the fact, are they demanding to know what the special counsel knows?

I believe they are carrying out their mandate of oversight. The dems won’t do it. (Wonder why). So that leaves some republicans. There should be focus on why this all started. There should have been overwhelming evidence of a crime to appoint a SC. If not something is seriously wrong here.

(05-04-2018 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 09:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The House has closed its investigation. Why, after the fact, are they demanding to know what the special counsel knows?

Perhaps because their oversight function is not limited to a single investigation?

perhaps Nunes is running interference for the President?

(05-04-2018 09:48 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 09:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The House has closed its investigation. Why, after the fact, are they demanding to know what the special counsel knows?

I believe they are carrying out their mandate of oversight. The dems won’t do it. (Wonder why). So that leaves some republicans. There should be focus on why this all started. There should have been overwhelming evidence of a crime to appoint a SC. If not something is seriously wrong here.

Nunes has seen the originating document and has made the claim that there was no proven intelligence that lead to this circus. If there was, then release the gd document so we can all see it and confirm that Mueller's appoint was warranted.

What's wrong with that?

(05-04-2018 09:49 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 09:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The House has closed its investigation. Why, after the fact, are they demanding to know what the special counsel knows?

Perhaps because their oversight function is not limited to a single investigation?

perhaps Nunes is running interference for the President?

Perhaps. But wouldn't you feel more comfortable if you knew the truth? As of now, we don't.

(05-04-2018 09:49 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 09:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The House has closed its investigation. Why, after the fact, are they demanding to know what the special counsel knows?

Perhaps because their oversight function is not limited to a single investigation?

perhaps Nunes is running interference for the President?

or perhaps you are getting drug around by your balls.

(05-04-2018 09:53 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 09:49 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 09:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The House has closed its investigation. Why, after the fact, are they demanding to know what the special counsel knows?

Perhaps because their oversight function is not limited to a single investigation?

perhaps Nunes is running interference for the President?

Perhaps. But wouldn't you feel more comfortable if you knew the truth? As of now, we don't.

We will, but I do not think the President, if he is, in fact, subpoenaed, is entitled to know what Mueller knows... and that's what the Nunes is trying to provide.

(05-04-2018 10:06 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  We will, but I do not think the President, if he is, in fact, subpoenaed, is entitled to know what Mueller knows... and that's what the Nunes is trying to provide.

In order to protect the perjury trap?