Posted on 12/20/2017 12:32:57 PM PST by gubamyster
EXCLUSIVE: Congressional investigators tell Fox News that Tuesday’s seven-hour interrogation of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe contained numerous conflicts with the testimony of previous witnesses, prompting the Republican majority staff of the House Intelligence Committee to decide to issue fresh subpoenas next week on Justice Department and FBI personnel.
While HPSCI staff would not confirm who will be summoned for testimony, all indications point to demoted DOJ official Bruce G. Ohr and FBI General Counsel James A. Baker, who accompanied McCabe, along with other lawyers, to Tuesday’s HPSCI session.
The issuance of a subpoena against the Justice Department’s top lawyer could provoke a new constitutional clash between the two branches, even worse than the months-long tug of war over documents and witnesses that has already led House Speaker Paul Ryan to accuse DOJ and FBI of “stonewalling” and HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., to threaten contempt-of-Congress citations against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
“It’s hard to know who’s telling us the truth,” said one House investigator after McCabe’s questioning.
Fox News is told that several lawmakers participated in the questioning of McCabe, led chiefly by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
Sources close to the investigation say that McCabe was a “friendly witness” to the Democrats in the room, who are said to have pressed the deputy director, without success, to help them build a case against President Trump for obstruction of justice in the Russia-collusion probe. “If he could have, he would have,” said one participant in the questioning.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Seems to me it would be such a mental release for all these crooks just to go ahead and say the truth. They must have so many ulcers from the stress of keeping their lies straight it must be killing them. Protecting Clinton and Obama is not good for your health.
They’ll probably find a “man scorned”.... or several.
ping
and see Sundance’s article
‘I knew this was coming. McCabe is essentially saying that the FBI stands by the veracity of the dossier. This has been the Dem meme all along. McCabe could not provide any specific corroboration except for the Cater Page trips to Russia. No doubt this was used to get the FISA warrant. ‘
~~~~~~~~~~~
He cannot deny the veracity because he then used the doc to send for the FISA.
So then he couldn’t ‘remember’ when he learned more about the doc that placed it’s truth in jeopardy, because he’s be hanged.
No more calls, folks. We have a winner.
L
Ironic, since Congress lies to the American people all the time.
You are claiming that congress can sentence a citizen to 20 years incarceration without a jury verdict? Wouldn’t that violate the Constitution?
“The issuance of a subpoena against the Justice Department’s top lawyer could provoke a new constitutional clash between the two branches...]
This statement suggests that the DOJ is viewed by the author to be a branch of government, equal to congress.
It is not.
While the DOJ is part of the Executive branch, I believe Donald Trump ordered publicly that both the DOJ and FBI comply with all investigations and provide all documents requested many months ago.
By the way, that does not include his transitional GSA-held documents. Oh by the way, those were released!
Faster please.
“You are claiming that congress can sentence a citizen to 20 years incarceration without a jury verdict? Wouldn’t that violate the Constitution?”
I am and it doesn’t. Judges can do it, too. Look it up.
L
The documents will have to speak for themselves.
How about nooses?
And the Rosenstein vaunted Inspector General Horowitz (whom Rosenstein hired BTW) will help to corroborate all the organized democrat lies. This is on a level way beyond Watergate.
Dan Coats is the DNI. As such the person at the top of security clearance is the President, who gets reports from the DNI and, one might add the NSA. They could very well have their own FISA warrants on these individuals at this point. One can hope.
So is the power to imprison without the right to trial by jury in the Constitution? Did the SCOTUS make a mistake in 1821?
Try this on:
In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress’ power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was “... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.”[2] The historical interpretation that bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law which made “contempt of Congress” a criminal offense against the United States.[3]
Then there is this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_v._United_States
And this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken
Congress is Sovereign in these matters. SCOTUS has spoken per above.
L
Thanks gubamyster.
However, the FBI's stonewalling has been disgraceful, and congress could threaten to use those rulings. But if they actually incarcerate say, McCabe, there is a real political risk of turning the public against Trump. And the SCOTUS today may have a different view of habeas corpus than it did 50 years ago. Thus such a move could be a disaster for the GOP.
What I would like to see is a better way, that still provides some bill-of-rights protections while allowing congress to enforce Contempt of Congress.
I believe this boils down to being a coup run by politicians, the MSM, and a segment of the intelligence agencies.
Nope the arrest and detain power is described in the constitution. The House and Senate have different powers. The House can hold someone until the current term expires.
practically anyone can have a year book, or purchase one for a 100 bucks from classmates.com.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.