Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Rosenstein threatening Congress and trying to cover up crimes committed by the DOJ

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator_fever, Jun 13, 2018.

  1. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,894
    493
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
    Rosenstein threatened to 'subpoena' GOP-led committee in 'chilling' clash over records, emails show

    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to “subpoena” emails, phone records and other documents from lawmakers and staff on a Republican-led House committee during a tense meeting earlier this year, according to emails reviewed by Fox News documenting the encounter and reflecting what aides described as a "personal attack."

    The emails memorialized a January 2018 closed-door meeting involving senior FBI and Justice Department officials as well as members of the House Intelligence Committee. The account claimed Rosenstein threatened to turn the tables on the committee's inquiries regarding the Russia probe.

    “The DAG [Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein] criticized the Committee for sending our requests in writing and was further critical of the Committee’s request to have DOJ/FBI do the same when responding,” the committee's then-senior counsel for counterterrorism Kash Patel wrote to the House Office of General Counsel. “Going so far as to say that if the Committee likes being litigators, then ‘we [DOJ] too [are] litigators, and we will subpoena your records and your emails,’ referring to HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and Congress overall.”

    A second House committee staffer at the meeting backed up Patel’s account, writing: “Let me just add that watching the Deputy Attorney General launch a sustained personal attack against a congressional staffer in retaliation for vigorous oversight was astonishing and disheartening. ... Also, having the nation’s #1 (for these matters) law enforcement officer threaten to 'subpoena your calls and emails' was downright chilling.”






    -----------------------------

    Sounds like Rosenstein may need to be put in cuffs also using these Obama DOJ era tactics to hide crimes committed by the DOJ by withholding things from Congress.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,554
    664
    378
    Nov 25, 2017
    Sounds like staffers on the House Intelligence Committee or even members need to be put in cuffs for abdicating their oversight responsibility and assisting subjects, targets and defendants prepare their defenses with confidential or otherwise privileged information from the DOJ. Funny how the righties complain about leaks, but not leaks from this committee.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  3. oragator1

    oragator1 Premium Member

    13,952
    1,306
    948
    Apr 3, 2007
    I would love the full transcript.

    I would bet cash his threat was related to the leaks and insinuations at the time that always were aimed at discrediting Rosenstein and Mueller. Of course, Trump demands investigation into leakers = good. AAG offers to do just that = bad. Depends on you POV on the leak I guess.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  4. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,894
    493
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
    That was recently - Rosenstein has been threatening people and refusing to hand over evidence of Obama's DOJ criminal behavior for months now.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. GatorNorth

    GatorNorth Premium Member Premium Member

    11,315
    715
    688
    Apr 3, 2007
    Atlanta
    Do you honestly think that Rosenstein, a lifelong Republican, would risk committing criminal acts himself to protect DOJ members of the opposing party from a prior administration? Your conspiracy theorism Has officially jumped the shark
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  6. oragator1

    oragator1 Premium Member

    13,952
    1,306
    948
    Apr 3, 2007
    The Mueller and Rosenstein bashing has been going on for months. Heck Gowdy himself leaked info to the White House last year and withdrew from the committee temporarily over it. Of course he found t in his heart to rush back and be the lead baton twirler in the defend trump parace.

    If Rosenstein broke the law, by all means prosecute him, I’m not here to blindly defend anyone. But look at the history of what has come out of the Republicans on those committees - pretty much everything they have said is strictly for the purpose of discrediting the investigation. Quotes out of context to set a narrative have been the norm. This is likely no different.

    And the sad part is that all of this should matter to everyone - if Russia interfered, and if anyone in the government aided that, it’s a huge deal. But Trump and his allies have done a good job of muddying the waters enough to now where it becomes more about who is giving the info than what they are saying.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,554
    664
    378
    Nov 25, 2017
    Unless my memory is fading, it was Nunes.
     
  8. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,894
    493
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
    I don't thinks its a crime for a congressmen to leak things like it is for others. I was hoping Rosenstein wasn't a crook like Comey and them but it looks like he probably is when it comes to trying to hide things.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,554
    664
    378
    Nov 25, 2017
    Everyone who dares to question or investigate Trump or his associates or runs against him should be led away in cuffs. :emoji_upside_down:That is the way Democracy works in Trumpworld.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,894
    493
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
     
  11. citygator

    citygator Premium Member

    2,791
    506
    423
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    Republicans eating other Republicans. Gotta love the entertainment. I think Dems win both houses this midterm.
     
  12. finorman

    finorman GC Legend

    731
    90
    173
    Jan 30, 2009
    Orlando
    Sure.... unless he is protecting himself. What’s he hiding, and why would any branch/department of government think they are not subject to oversite from another branch/department?
     
  13. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    4,526
    278
    273
    Apr 16, 2007
    I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong on that. Nunes position authorizes him access to such materials, but not to "leak" them. I mean just think rationally here, you guys wanted to indict the Secretary of State over classified emails. That person receives the highest levels of classified materials and is 4th in the line in Presidential succession. Where is Devin Nunes on that list? Pretty sure he is nowhere. He has no authority to leak anything.

    I remember opining on this months ago. Nunes behaviors seemed to be very much toeing the line of "obstruction of justice", particularly if he is coordinating his message with the White House. At the very least it has been a gross abuse of his authority and of the intelligence he receives. Ryan was a spineless coward for not removing him months ago.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    4,526
    278
    273
    Apr 16, 2007
    He is protecting DOJ protocols. The congress's roll is oversight, it isn't to delve into the specific details of an open and ongoing investigation - or perhaps even to interfere with that investigation. It seems pretty clear Nunes and some others aren't just interested in "oversight". They are purely interested in interfering, and quite likely coordinating their efforts and messaging with a corrupt White House.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,894
    493
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
    Schiff should already be in jail if leaking is illegal for congressman.
     
  16. GatorBen

    GatorBen Premium Member

    5,587
    728
    563
    Apr 9, 2007
    Putting aside the other comments already covered...

    Do you really not see the irony in folks whose entire purpose has been to send harassing subpoenas specifically intended to interfere with DOJ’s operations now acting like the prospect of receiving a subpoena themselves is the most scandalous and outrageous concept imaginable?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,554
    664
    378
    Nov 25, 2017
    The DOJ addressed the constitutional authority for oversight last year.

    We understand that questions have been raised about the authority of individual members of Congress to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch.

    The Constitution vests “[a]ll legislative Powers” in “a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 1. The Supreme Court has recognized that one of those legislative powers is the implicit authority of each house of Congress to gather information in aid of its legislative function. See McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927). Each house may exercise its authority directly—for example, by passing a resolution of inquiry seeking information from the Executive Branch. See 4 Deschler’s Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, ch. 15, § 2, at 30–50 (1981) (describing the practice of resolutions of inquiry and providing examples); Floyd M. Riddick & Alan S. Frumin, Riddick’s Senate Procedure, S. Doc. No. 101-28, at 882 (1992) (“The Senate itself could investigate or hear witnesses as it has on rare occasions[.]”). In modern practice, however, each house typically conducts oversight “through delegations of authority to its committees, which act either through requests by the committee chairman, speaking on behalf of the committee, or through some other action by the committee itself.” Application of Privacy Act Congressional-Disclosure Exception to Disclosures to Ranking Minority Members, 25 Op. O.L.C. 289, 289 (2001) (“Application of Privacy Act”); see also Alissa M. Dolan et al., Cong. Research Serv., RL30240, Congressional Oversight Manual 65 (Dec. 19, 2014). As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he theory of a committee inquiry is that the committee members are serving as the representatives of the parent assembly in collecting information for a legislative purpose” and, in such circumstances, “committees and subcommittees, sometimes one Congressman, are endowed with the full power of the Congress to compel testimony.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200–01 (1957).

    https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/966326/download
     
  18. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,554
    664
    378
    Nov 25, 2017
    Here is an article specifically related to oversight of the DOJ by Congress.

    P. 79 (citing Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S. 599, 617 (1962); Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 294 (1929))

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the breadth of Congress’ right to investigate the government’s conduct of criminal and civil litigation.9 Congress must be given access to agency documents, even in situations where the inquiry may result in pre-trial publicity and the exposure of criminal corruption or maladministration of agency officials. The Supreme Court has noted that a committee’s investigation “need not grind to a halt whenever responses to its inquiries might potentially be harmful to a witness in some distinct proceeding … or when crime or wrongdoing is disclosed.”10 Despite the existence of pending litigation, Congress may investigate facts that have a bearing on that litigation where the information sought is needed to determine what, if any, legislation should be enacted to prevent further ills.11 Although several lower court decisions have recognized that congressional hearings may have the result of generating prejudicial pre-trial publicity, they have not suggested that there are any constitutional or legal limitations on Congress’ right to conduct an investigation while a court case is still proceeding. Instead, the courts have granted additional time or a change of location for a trial to deal with the publicity problem.12 For example, the court in one of the leading cases, Delaney v. United States, entertained “no doubt that the committee acted lawfully, within the constitutional powers of Congress duly delegated to it,” but went on to note that the Justice Department must accept the consequence that the judicial department, charged with the duty of assuring the defendant a fair trial before an impartial jury, may find it necessary to postpone the trial until by lapse of time the danger of the prejudice may reasonably be thought to have been substantially removed.13 Thus, the courts have recognized that the cases pose a choice for the Congress: congressionally generated publicity may result in harming the prosecutorial effort of the executive; but access to information under secure conditions can fulfill the congressional power of investigation. Courts have recognized that this remains a choice that is solely within Congress’ discretion to make irrespective of the consequences. As the Iran-Contra independent counsel observed: “The legislative branch has the power to decide whether it is more important perhaps to destroy a prosecution than to hold back testimony they need. They make that decision. It is not a judicial decision, or a legal decision, but a political decision of the highest importance.”14



    https://constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Chapter-7.pdf
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,554
    664
    378
    Nov 25, 2017
    From the Congressional Research Service:

    pp. 8-9, again citing Hutcheson and Sinclair

    As has been recounted previously, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the breadth of Congress’ right to investigate the government’s conduct of criminal and civil litigation.44 The courts have also held that agencies may not deny Congress access to agency documents, even in situations where the inquiry may result in the exposure of criminal corruption or maladministration of agency officials. The Supreme Court has noted, “ut surely a congressional committee which is engaged in a legitimate legislative investigation need not grind to a halt whenever responses to its inquiries might potentially be harmful to a witness in some distinct proceeding ... or when crime or wrongdoing is exposed.”45 The Court further explained: The suggestion made in dissent that the questions which petitioner refused to answer were ‘outside the power of a committee to ask’ under the Due Process Clause because they touched on matters then pending in judicial proceedings cannot be accepted for several reasons: First, the reasoning underlying this proposition is that these inquiries constituted a legislative encroachment on the judicial function. But such reasoning can hardly be limited to inquiries that may be germane to existing judicial proceedings: it would surely apply as well to inquiries calling for answers that may be used to the prejudice of witnesses in any future judicial proceeding. If such were the reach of ‘due process’ it would turn a witness’ privilege against self-incrimination into a self-operating restraint on congressional inquiry, and would in effect pro tanto obliterate the need for that constitutional protection.46 Additionally, the pendency of litigation does not prohibit Congress from investigating facts that have a bearing on that litigation, where the information sought is needed to determine what, if any, legislation should be enacted to prevent further ills.47 Although several lower court decisions have recognized that congressional hearings may generate prejudicial pre-trial publicity, they have not expressly suggested that there are any constitutional or legal limitations on Congress’s right to conduct an investigation while judicial proceedings are pending. Instead, the cases have suggested approaches, such as granting a continuance or a change of venue, to deal with the publicity problem.48 For example, the court in one of the leading cases, Delaney v. United States, stated that “no doubt that the committee acted lawfully, within the constitutional powers of Congress duly delegated to it” but went on to describe the possible consequences of concurrent executive and congressional investigations:

    We think that the United States is put to a choice in this matter: If the United States, through its legislative department, acting conscientiously pursuant to its conception of the public interest, chooses to hold a public hearing inevitably resulting in such damaging publicity prejudicial to a person awaiting trial on a pending indictment, then the United States must accept the consequences that the judicial department, charged with the duty of assuring the defendant a fair trial before an impartial jury, may find it necessary to postpone the trial until by lapse of time the danger of the prejudice may reasonably be thought to have been substantially removed.49 The Delaney court distinguished the case of a congressional hearing generating publicity relating to an individual not under indictment at the time: Such a situation may present important differences from the instant case. In such a situation the investigative function of Congress has its greatest utility: Congress is informing itself so that it may take appropriate legislative action; it is informing the Executive so that existing laws may be enforced; and it is informing the public so that democratic processes may be brought to bear to correct any disclosed executive laxity. Also, if as a result of such legislative hearing an indictment is eventually procured against the public official, then in the normal case there would be a much greater lapse of time between the publicity accompanying the public hearing and the trial of the subsequently indicted official than would be the case if the

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42811.pdf
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Gatormb

    Gatormb GC Hall of Fame

    9,009
    494
    558
    Apr 3, 2007
    Bradenton, Fl
    Side bet? $100. We'll make it so it doesn't hurt. You can pick who holds the money.