Posted on 12/14/2017 9:10:15 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley was hardly impressed by testimony given by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Wednesday morning in front of the House Judiciary Committee and wants to know more about the political text messages sent between FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page.
Grassley sent a letter to Rosenstein Thursday morning demanding more information about the politically charged environment at the FBI during the Clinton email investigation and leading up to the 2016 presidential election. He also wants DOJ to turn over all of the messages between Strzok and Page to the Committee.
"Some of these texts appear to go beyond merely expressing a private political opinion, and appear to cross the line into taking some official action to create an 'insurance policy' against a Trump presidency," Grassley wrote. "That text message occurred during Mr. Strzok’s involvement in the Clinton investigation and days before he interviewed Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills on April 5, 2016 and April 9, 2016, respectively. Thus, the mention of 'hillary' may refer to Secretary Clinton and therefore could indicate that Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page engaged in other communications about an ongoing investigation on a different phone in an effort to prevent it from being traced."
"Any improper political influence or motives in the course of any FBI investigation must be brought to light and fully addressed. Former Director Comey’s claims that the FBI 'doesn’t give a rip about politics' certainly are not consistent with the evidence of discussions occurring in the Deputy Director’s office around August 15, 2016," the letter continues.
Grassley is also pressing for information about the role Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe played in the "insurance policy." McCabe came under scrutiny earlier this year after it was revealed his wife took money from a Clinton connected super pac for her state Senate race in Virginia.
Here are the questions Grassley wants answered:
1. On what date did you become aware of the text messages between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page and on what date were they each removed from the Special Counsel’s office? 2. Are there any other records relating to the conversation in Andrew McCabe’s office shortly before the text described above on August 15, 2016? If so please produce them to the Committee. 3. Please provide all records relating to Andrew McCabe’s communications with Peter Strzok or Lisa Page between August 7, 2016 and August 23, 2016. 4. What steps have you taken to determine whether Mr. Strzok, Mr. Page, and Mr. McCabe should face disciplinary action for their conduct? 5. My understanding is that the Inspector General’s current investigation is limited to the handling of the Clinton email matter only. What steps have you taken to determine whether steps taken during the campaign to escalate the Russia investigation might have been a result of the political animus evidenced by these text messages rather than on the merits? 6. Has the Department identified the referenced “that phone” Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page used to discuss Secretary Clinton? What steps has the Department taken to review the records on this other phone that allegedly “can’t be traced.” If none, please explain why not? If steps have been taken, please detail them and provide all records reviewed.
DOJ is expected to issue a response by December 27.
Yeah right...the explanations are in the mail!
I know we all get upset and think these morons will never have to pay for their crimes, but sometimes a scandal reaches a point that it people will no longer risk their necks to cover for people.
I honestly believe we are starting to reach the point where the corruption is so obvious that the coverups will no longer work.
Grassley should have waited. The Obama appointee DOJ IG will just use this as an excuse to delay his report another 6 months.
Grassley is using a legal term here “animus.” Victoria Toensing explained on Hannity yesterday that this is considered worse than bias in the legal sense.
“These disgusting swamp creatures, including Obama, were willing to declare that Russia engaged in what would amount to an act of war by meddling in the US election, and were willing to lay land mines of sanctions for Trump in this false narrative.”
“Think about it - they were willing to risk grave relations with another nuclear power for the sake of their internal political games and to cover for Hillary and themselves.”
9 posted on 12/13/2017, 3:25:23 PM by PGR88
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3613346/posts?page=9#9
Good points: “I know we all get upset and think these morons will never have to pay for their crimes, but sometimes a scandal reaches a point that it people will no longer risk their necks to cover for people.
“I honestly believe we are starting to reach the point where the corruption is so obvious that the coverups will no longer work.”
Also, I feel that there are a few white hats left in the FBI/DOJ!
Those white hats are releasing emails and other data so a vast deep state conspiracy against candidate Trump and later President Elect Trump is being exposed each day!
Wait, didn't Rosenstein us the Inspector-General-is-investigating-so-I-can't-comment excuse for more than the Clinton email questions??
Is there anybody here who still thinks Rosenstein isn't stonewalling?
Grassley is using a legal term here “animus.” Victoria Toensing explained on Hannity yesterday that this is considered worse than bias in the legal sense.
“Animus means a motive or intent to interfere with the exercise of a right; not hostility, ill-will or personal animosity.” In his 1889 law dictionary, William Anderson defined animus as mind, disposition, intention (or) will. Similarly, from the anonymous Latin for Lawyers: “Animus: mind, intention.”
And when Rosenstein doesn’t get back to him or dissembles, then what will Congress do? These plots have really exposed the impotence of Congress against determined opponents. Holder was held in Contempt of Congress. He walks around making money and is proud of what he did. Rosenstein, Mueller, Sessions and their minions are planning to overthrow the President. Congress will not get in their way and may help. Trump and American patriots need to plan for what happens next.
what do we know about the IG?
Is there anybody here who still thinks Rosenstein isn’t stonewalling?
Rosenstein is following the Democrat playbook: delay, delay, delay. Then eventually the story becomes “old news.”
Horrowitz (spelling) was appointed to IG by Obama...BUT He clerked under John Davies, who may have influenced him. Davies Was a republican Judge appointed by the late, great, RR...
You're not going to like the answer.
Michael Horowitz is the DOJ IG. He was nominated by Obama. He was the IG who whitewashed Fast and Furious.
Lodi90...you got it. Look how Podesta and his brother just dropped off the map. Should have been busting rocks in prison by now.
Rosenstein needs to be told to issue the IG report by January 31st or be held in contempt of Congress. The DOJ has been “investigating” this for a year. Enough is enough.
I hope you and I are both right!
Grassley is trying to be relevant after opening his yap on the Moore candidacy. It’s time for a replacement.
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.