Skip to comments.DoJ to GOP: There are "limits" on our cooperation with your investigations
Posted on 01/21/2023 6:42:41 PM PST by SeekAndFind
One of the promises that Speaker McCarthy made as the new House GOP majority was being seated this year was that there were going be investigations taking place. Lots of investigations, particularly into subjects that the Democratic majority had curiously shown little interest in. One of those areas was the political weaponization of the FBI and other elements of the Department of Justice and the intelligence community against Joe Biden’s political opponents. But before they could even begin the process, the DoJ sent a letter this week to Jim Jordan, the new head of the House Judiciary Committee that would be conducting the investigation. In the letter, Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte informed Jordan that there would be “limits” on how much cooperation the committee could expect to receive. This seems like a rather shady maneuver from a group of public servants who are supposedly not doing anything wrong. (CBS News)
The Justice Department told House Republicans there would be strict parameters limiting its ability to fully cooperate with congressional probes into the department’s work.
In a letter Friday to the new House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, the department cited the need to safeguard ongoing investigations.
“Consistent with longstanding policy and practice, any oversight requests must be weighed against the Department’s interests in protecting the integrity of its work ,” Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte wrote. “Longstanding Department policy prevents us from confirming or denying the existence of pending investigations in response to congressional requests or providing non-public information about our investigations.”
The letter may have come from Carlos Uriarte, but you know he didn’t make that decision without getting a green light from Merrick Garland and, by default, the White House. The last thing they want to see is any sort of scrutiny over how the FBI has treated people labeled by Biden as “mega MAGA” conservatives when compared to significant Democratic Party donors and supporters. When the GOP begins serious investigations into Hunter and Jim Biden’s business dealings, there will almost certainly be more talk of “limits” like this.
The claim being made by the DoJ seems as thin as tissue paper. Uriarte is saying that the DoJ can’t release information that might cause “interference in ongoing investigations .” Their policy supposedly only allows such congressional oversight in “extraordinary circumstances.” But with all of the bizarre and shady things going on in the executive branch these days, nearly everything they’re doing should qualify as an extraordinary circumstance.
It’s true that federal law enforcement typically won’t comment to reporters about ongoing investigations. (Though they break that rule also when it’s convenient to them.) And there are cases where public knowledge could cause problems during an investigation. But if Congress wants to know what they’re up to, the testimony could be moved to a closed session with no press access. And while we’re on the subject, I don’t recall the January 6 committee having any trouble getting people to come in and feed them information, do you? We didn’t hear any talk of “limits” over the past two years.
This morning, I had CNN on my television in the background while working and the usual suspects were already providing cover for Garland and company. The GOP-led investigations are “clearly political in nature” and “messaging sideshows.” (They’re directly parroting statements already put out by the White House with that last one.) McCarthy needs to push back hard on this nonsense coming from the DoJ. The voters decided to narrowly give Republicans in the House the power to move their agenda forward. Merrick Garland and Joe Biden don’t get to stand in the way of that just because they’re afraid the public will find out what they’ve really been up to.
The reply from the GOP should be, “There are limits to our funding the DOJ.” It’s called the power of the purse, now use it.
The appropriate answer should be, there are limits to your funding, which will cease to exist. But this gives the republicans an excuse to not deliver. Nothing new.
LoL. Beat me to it.
The Republicans give them whatever crazy funding increase they want.
That’s the reality of it.
The gop should start sending out subpoenas to everyone. Any one who doesn’t respond should be referred to the doj for prosecution. Of course they won’t be prosecuted, but it will give a boost to those appealing convictions for the same.
But they are way too scared to ever go there.
Wicked corruption. Will it ever end?
They want to also exclude oversight of the failure to act with integrity. Lack of integrity is part of their means and methods they cannot have exposed.
The DOJ is a structural device, but it does nothing by itself. It is People who do everything that it does. They are on the public payroll. Every one of them is subject to investigation, exposure, and prosecution, just like any other public servant. In light of the outrageous miscarriages of Justice we have seen, every single employee of these agencies should be investigated, and the wrongdoers dealt with. This is not unreasonable.
Jim Jordan and the others should reply to the DOJ:
“We control the purse strings, we’ll cut your budget $1 million dollars per day until you cooperate.”
The need to have 100% of their funding cut until they comply then turn 50% back on. 50% or less.
Scotus gave prosecutors qualified immunity. As a result there is very little to check prosecutorial misconduct and cover-ups. I doubt Scotus will change their opinion. Congress needs to exercise their power of the purse if they can’t get answers and documents.
Congress should work on legislation that can check abuses from judicial/prosecutorial immunity. We need the means of stripping prosecutors of their jobs and restitution for victims.
In the meantime, juries should default to acquittals in federal case.
The ball is in your court, Jimmy. What are you going to do about that, write more letters?
cut off the money. No budget, no appropriations.
Agreed, zeroing them out will get their attention. Same with the fibs.
“The ball is in your court, Jimmy. What are you going to do about that, write more letters?”
Well, they COULD be strongly worded.
That’ll show ‘em.
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.