Posted on 12/06/2017 10:23:31 AM PST by Golden Eagle
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, this week pushed the FBI to turn over all documents relating to Peter Strzok, the official who was removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team due to political bias.
"The communications between members of the Clinton email investigation team raise questions about the integrity of that investigation, and about the objectivity of Mr. Strzok's work for the Special Counsel and in the FBI's investigation of Mr. Flynn," Grassley wrote in his letter.
Grassley asked Wray for all communications involving Strzok during his work in those investigations, including any communications involving the FBI's decision to change the finding that Clinton was "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent" in handling emails. That change, which Strzok was reportedly behind, helped Clinton evade possible criminal charges.
Grassley demanded that information by Monday, Dec. 11.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Link:
Grassley’s a bulldog.
He bites down and won’t let go...
Grassley is on the case... that means in 3 years he will make a scornful remark about the FBI that will reallllly sting them!
Everything is there,brilliant Mr. Grassley.
There’s blood in the water. A massive cover up of obstruction and political corruption by management in the FBI. Wray needs to remove a number of them and prosecute their malfeasance.
Can you direct us to ANYTHING Grassley has ever done that caused the left the slightest in consequences?
Grassley-a disturber of the excrement in his old age.
Chuck Grassley! Prayers of thanksgiving to our Lord for Grassley. A plodding but strikingly honest man, is Charles Grassley. God bless him.
Did you happen to hear Sara Carter say last night, on HANNITY, that she thinks there might be (this very week) a major shake up at the FBI?
I believe you’re right. There is blood in the water as you said.
Hey Senator Grassley, can we also find out what FBI official Aaron Rouse’s role was in whitewashing the Clinton matter?
Until the end of July 2016, Aaron Rouse was a section chief in the FBI Counterintelligence division in DC together with Peter Strzok, where the Clinton email matter was handled.
And what is Aaron Rouse doing now? He is in charge of the Las Vegas shooting investigation, apparently making sure the public learns as little as possible about what happened in Vegas.
The FBI has been thumbing their noses at Congress whenever they’re asked for documents relating to the Mueller witch hunt. How do they get away with it?
A few days ago, House Intelligence committee Chairman Nunez threatend to issue a subpoena. Enough with the threats. Just do it.
Chuck doesn’t take credit for work he’s done.
Folks back home know his track record.
And don’t let the CORRUPT FBI decide which emails are relevant and/or to black out the portions of emails they do not want to be seen by Congress. The FBI has long since lost the right for Americans to have ANY confidence in their honesty.
The FBI should be regarded as HOSTILE witnesses are regarded.
Not to impugn Mr. Grassley’s effort, but it’s unfortunate that the these type of demands only serve to highlight what evidence must be destroyed and how much time there is to do it.
How old is Grassley. Can King succeed him Who’s left?
my money is on Strzok being on the payroll of the Clinton foundation in some fashion.
Actually Nunes and others in Congress are threatening to hold the FBI and DOJ in contempt, which would be almost unprecedented since they are al under the control of politicians of the same party. If it goes that far, Trump may finally have the cover pull the trigger on Sessions, if that's something he feels is necessary.
Inspector General’s Report Looking at 27 Leakers Will Cause MAJOR SHAKE-UP AT FBI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wavpfe6SxuI&feature=youtu.be
Sounds more like the same old Dog and Pony show to me, otherwise All of these “witnesses” would be Rotting in the Congressional Jail!!
The refusal to answer pertinent questions in a matter of inquiry within the jurisdiction of the
Senate, of course, constitutes a contempt of that body, and by the statute this is also made an offense
against the United States.
The history of Congressional investigations demonstrates the difficulties under which the two
Houses have labored, respectively, in compelling unwilling witnesses to disclose acts deemed essential
to taking definitive action, and we quite agree with Chief Justice Alvey, delivering the opinion of the
court of appeals, “that Congress possessed the constitutional power to enact a statute to enforce the
attendance of witnesses and to compel them to make disclosure of evidence to enable the respective
bodies to discharge their legitimate functions;” and that it was to affect this that the act of 1857 was
passed. It was an act necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested in Congress
and in each House thereof. We grant that Congress could not divest itself, or either of its Houses, of
the essential and inherent power to punish for contempt in cases to which the power of either House
properly extended; but because Congress, by the act of 1857, sought to aid each of the Houses in the
discharge of its constitutional functions, it does not follow that any delegation of the power in each to
punish for contempt was involved; and the statute is not open to objection on that account.
Nevertheless, although the power to punish for contempt still remains in each House, we must
decline to decide that this law is invalid because it provides that contumacy in a witness called to testify
in a matter properly under consideration by either House and deliberately refusing to answer questions
pertinent thereto, shall be a misdemeanor against the United States, who are interested that the authority
of neither of their departments, nor of any branch thereof, shall be defied and set at naught. It is
improbable that in any case cumulative penalties would be imposed, whether by way of punishment
merely or of eliciting the answers desired, but it is quite clear that the contumacious witness is not
subjected to jeopardy twice for the same offense, since the same act may be an offense against one
jurisdiction and also an offense against another; and indictable statutory offenses may be punished
as such, while the offenders may likewise be subjected to punishment for the same acts as contempts,
the two being diverse intuitu and capable of standing together.
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.