Posted on 05/24/2018 11:00:03 AM PDT by rktman
Redactions, the blacked-out portions that appear in many government documents, are making it difficult for Congress to do its oversight work, says Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
In a letter [1] to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Wednesday, Grassley wrote: "Please provide unredacted copies of all text messages" between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page "to the Committee no later than June 6, 2018."
Grassley said some of the redactions "may contain relevant information relating to the Committee's ongoing investigation into the manner in which the Department of Justice and FBI handled the Clinton and Russia investigations."
Grassley mentions two particular redactions in the thousands of Strzok-Page text messages that call into question the FBI's "justification" for witholding information from Congress:
"As one example of redacted material, in a text message produced to the Committee, the price of Andrew McCabe’s $70,000 conference table was redacted," Grassley wrote. "In another, an official’s name was redacted in reference to a text about the Obama White House “running” an investigation, although it is unclear to which investigation they were referring."
"Should the Department continue to refuse to provide fully unredacted copies to Congress, please provide a privilege log describing the legal basis for withholding that information from Congress," Grassley wrote.
The senator's complete letter is printed below.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
and the dance continues.
I guess the US Senate isn’t aware of the phrase “have them to me by close of business today”.
This drives me crazy.
Let's look at this the other way around -- there is a sensitive document which can't be safely shared with the world. Parts need to be redacted. Well, that will take some time. We need to contact experts, they need to make decisions and come to agreement. Final version of a redacted document may be a few weeks away -- maybe we get it to you by June 6 2018.
But that's not the case here at all
Here the request is just for the raw document. Okay. Push the button. WHOOSH! There goes the email. It took 5 seconds and now you have the raw unredacted emails. So, what is up with this June 6 nonsense?
IBTR!
Weasel will agree, provided the letters with an “a,m,b,and o”, may still be redacted.
p
Note to all future POTUS, regardless of party: Fire all top echelons of the Justice Dept, FBI etc on Day 1 of your administration. Deep six the deep state.
Everything just seems like a slow walk to the midterms.
Also, I feel like I’m seeing more bark than bite from Congress.
2. ALL redactions must be footnoted with a number corresponding to the REASON for the redaction.
ANY redaction made for purposes of CONCEALING A CRIME by the DOJ, FBI or any other agency will result in PROSECUTION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE of the person who made the redaction!!!
Well, based on recent actions, they’ll choose to NOT prosecute.
“Please provide unredacted copies of all text messages” between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page “to the Committee no later than June 6, 2018.”
Why not all text messages OF Peter Strzok and ALL text messages OF Lisa Page? I would bet they didn’t just communicate this stuff with each other.
Redactions made solely for the purpose of SHIELDING AN AGENCY OR ANY OF THEIR EMPLOYEES from embarrassment IS NOT PERMITTED.
These are RULES that I am suggesting CONGRESS impose on ALL government agencies.
as coincidental as it is the case quoted by levin regarding principal officers having to be appointed and confirmed
deals with providing documents and request by congress for an independemnt counsel
interesting but long read
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/487/654.html
..........The proceedings in this case provide an example of how the Act works in practice. In 1982, two Subcommittees of the House of Representatives issued subpoenas directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to produce certain documents relating to the efforts of the EPA and the Land and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department to enforce the “Superfund Law.” 10 At that time, appellee Olson was the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), appellee Schmults was Deputy Attorney General, and appellee Dinkins was the Assistant Attorney General for the Land and Natural Resources Division. Acting on the advice of the Justice Department, the President ordered the Administrator of EPA to invoke executive privilege to withhold certain of the documents on the ground that they contained “enforcement sensitive information.” The Administrator obeyed this order and withheld the documents. In response, the House voted to hold the Administrator in contempt, after which the Administrator and the United States together filed a lawsuit against the House. The conflict abated in March 1983, when the administration agreed to give the House Subcommittees limited access to the documents.
The following year, the House Judiciary Committee began an investigation into the Justice Department’s role in the controversy over the EPA documents. During this investigation, appellee Olson testified before a House Subcommittee [487 U.S. 654, 666] on March 10, 1983. Both before and after that testimony, the Department complied with several Committee requests to produce certain documents. Other documents were at first withheld, although these documents were eventually disclosed by the Department after the Committee learned of their existence. In 1985, the majority members of the Judiciary Committee published a lengthy report on the Committee’s investigation. Report on Investigation of the Role of the Department of Justice in the Withholding of Environmental Protection Agency Documents from Congress in 1982-83, H. R. Rep. No. 99-435 (1985). The report not only criticized various officials in the Department of Justice for their role in the EPA executive privilege dispute, but it also suggested that appellee Olson had given false and misleading testimony to the Subcommittee on March 10, 1983, and that appellees Schmults and Dinkins had wrongfully withheld certain documents from the Committee, thus obstructing the Committee’s investigation. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee forwarded a copy of the report to the Attorney General with a request, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 592(c), that he seek the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the allegations against Olson, Schmults, and Dinkins................
WUT? That sounds almost conspiratorial or something.
The President has the authority to order Rosencriminal to comply with Congress immediately.
PROSECUTE ROSENSTEIN FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. ENOUGH ALREADY!
Exactly. But then, it does take longer to cover your hiney and make sure nothing gets out that looks bad or ...might get you..jailed!
I'm not sure who the DOJ thinks they are to refuse a request by Congress (request is a mannerly way of saying "order to produce"). I understand the Rule of Law doesn't seem to apply to the DOJ...maybe Congress needs some marshalls to read the order to the fibbies et al.
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.
