Posted on 7/22/2018, 2:30:36 PM by Kaslin
We have seen the theater of Peter Strzok defiantly defending his actions while working for the FBI during the 2016 election cycle and in the aftermath with the investigations. Once again, a “right” was established that the FBI does not have and one that harms our country by the continuing false affirmation.
The right asserted as supposedly told to him by an FBI attorney is that he could not comment on an ongoing investigation. This is one of the two rights the FBI throws around when they do not want to comment on the work that Congress is reviewing as part of its oversight authority. The other right the FBI likes to conjure up is that select testimony cannot be provided because of national security concerns. Congress should decide whether any of these items are relevant to those two areas, not the Bureau.
Ted Lieu (D-CA) stated while questioning Strzok during hearings that the Republicans could not show that there was any bias demonstrated by Strzok in his official capacity during the investigations. How could we know and how could Congress know when both Strzok and FBI Director Christopher Wray stonewalled us about the investigation or providing documents from the FBI?
The IG report stated they did not find evidence of bias in “decision making”; considering the massive amount of biased texts and the identification by the IG of bias, there is a serious question of whether there was bias in the decision making by Strzok. We may never know because no one outside the FBI or Justice Department will ever evaluate the information because it is part of a “continuing investigation” that may last until the next century or until America has long forgotten this issue.
Neither of these rights exist. They never have. Congress oversees this bureau and has the actual right to demand documents and answers to questions regarding the activities of the FBI. It is Congress that makes the decision whether to release information on an ongoing investigation or whether the materials are an issue of national security. The FBI can certainly advise them of any concerns, but Congress has the ultimate decision.
If you watched the testimony, particularly in the beginning when Trey Gowdy (R-SC) queried Strzok, he invoked this imaginary privilege. The answers Gowdy was seeking would not have given away any information that would have jeopardized the investigation. They were about the timeline of Strzok’s work compared to his inflammatory texts. Gowdy did not ask anything about witnesses’ names, places or the information they provided. Strzok used this bogus protection to avoid answering relevant questions from a smart prosecutor.
If the bureau was successful in asserting this right then all the executive branch departments, agencies and bureaus -- that have been multiplying like rabid rabbits -- would be able to state they are unable to answer congressional inquiries for their own homegrown rationale. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services could proclaim that they did not have to answer congressional inquiries because of national health concerns and releasing the information would cause a national health hysteria. Or the EPA could advance that releasing information would advance a national environmental panic.
The principal matter here is the ever-expanding secrecy of our federal government. Our elected officials and worse, our public employees, think we are children and they cannot tell us anything. Too many secrets are kept from us and for too long. That is why our government is still withholding information about the Kennedy Assassination now 55 years later. We can handle the truth so start telling us. Actually, by withholding information you create more dissension as the press, as currently constituted, spends far too much time wildly speculating as opposed to reporting information. The release of information would tamp that down.
Of course, Congress is partially at fault for creating and perpetuating the problem. They can hold the offenders in contempt. In fact, when Strzok refused to answer some questions, Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) stated he was going to do so to Strzok. We have to see if he will follow through with the threat. Congress did hold Eric Holder in contempt in 2012. He was held to be civilly and criminally liable for not turning over documents regarding the investigation of Fast and Furious, the gun-running scheme of the Obama administration. The problem is that Congress does not follow up with enforcing their powers.
If Congress actually sent U.S. marshals and arrested Strzok he might change his tune. If they also arrested the attorney invoking the supposed right along with Strzok maybe they would start singing. There is an actual law that provides for a penalty of up to a year in prison if convicted of being held in contempt of Congress. If you act like a paper tiger, then people will not fear or respect you.
Congress does not have a significant level of respect in the country and has not for awhile. The reasons are many, varied and have evolved, but one that continues is that they are perceived as an overpaid, pampered group of wimps unwilling to make tough decisions.
The principal matter here is the ever-expanding secrecy of our federal government. Our elected officials and worse, our public employees, think we are children and they cannot tell us anything. Too many secrets are kept from us and for too long. That is why our government is still withholding information about the Kennedy Assassination now 55 years later. We can handle the truth so start telling us. Actually, by withholding information you create more dissension as the press, as currently constituted, spends far too much time wildly speculating as opposed to reporting information. The release of information would tamp that down.
Of course, Congress is partially at fault for creating and perpetuating the problem. They can hold the offenders in contempt. In fact, when Strzok refused to answer some questions, Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) stated he was going to do so to Strzok. We have to see if he will follow through with the threat. Congress did hold Eric Holder in contempt in 2012. He was held to be civilly and criminally liable for not turning over documents regarding the investigation of Fast and Furious, the gun-running scheme of the Obama administration. The problem is that Congress does not follow up with enforcing their powers.
If Congress actually sent U.S. marshals and arrested Strzok he might change his tune. If they also arrested the attorney invoking the supposed right along with Strzok maybe they would start singing. There is an actual law that provides for a penalty of up to a year in prison if convicted of being held in contempt of Congress. If you act like a paper tiger, then people will not fear or respect you.
Congress does not have a significant level of respect in the country and has not for awhile. The reasons are many, varied and have evolved, but one that continues is that they are perceived as an overpaid, pampered group of wimps unwilling to make tough decisions.
Not until there are actual indictments and arrests, starting with Comey and McCabe will anything meaningful happen. Commissars like Strzok can continue to grin and stonewall. The complete truth of the Obama plot to subvert American democracy will not be revealed until weak people like Comey and McCabe face hard jail time. Either Sessions is doing something unbeknownst to all or this all for naught.
“If Congress actually sent U.S. marshals and arrested Strzok he might change his tune.”
If this punk had sent a text that said “I am in Walmart and I can smell the Obama voters” that is exactly what would happen.
The FBI likes to hide behind convenient and protective walls that it, and only it, constructs.
I wish someone would name names of the small army of trustworthy attorneys who are carrying out Sessions’ silent chess moves. They are indeed praiseworthy for manipulating the legal system completely without leaks or tipping off the miscreants. Quite miraculous, I’d say!
The congress, president, and even the courts (i.e. FISA) have allowed what is a de facto fourth branch of government to arise and wield enormous unchecked powers. So what we have is unelected, unaccountable. and unconstrained bureaucrats doing whatever they want to do.
Somebody needs to restore control over the FBI and its parent, the Department of Just Us.
Would that be the Jeff Sessions that the president has totally lost confidence in? Have you read Trump’s tweets about the AG in hiding?
Sessions will ensure that no elected officials will go to jail.
I hope this one winds up in prison....along with Comey. The idea that the FBI is the highest position of our country and accountable to no one is absurd.
Go to Washington and you can smell the stench of Congress.
Then you have the piles of feces everywhere too.
The FOIA has been gutted. It needs to be strengthened. Agencies fulfilling the requests is a joke. Either the IG or a Special Master with Top Secret clearance should be in charge of fulfilling these requests.
Right now the corrupt officials are in charge of disclosing their corruption.
This is happening at the state and local level also. Witness any local press conference after a shooting or other incident where the suspect is clearly in custody or dead and state officials will stand at a microphone and say "I can't answer that", "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation", over and over and over.
I have said on this board many times "I can't answer that" from a state or local police dept. is an unacceptable answer. Yes they can answer and they should be compelled to do so. They work for us, not the other way around. We the people are the boss. The only time a law enforcement spokesman should be able to decline to answer a question is in the case where giving the answer would put someones life in direct danger. When this exception is invoked it should be recorded and later must be proven to who's life was in danger otherwise it should be a violation of law for the police to decline to answer. I don't care one iota about how it could compromise a future court case, prosecution or any other such nonsense. If it compromises the prosecution then we can change the laws so it minimizes the effect in the future but for now the TRUTH and the FACTS must be immediately provided to the public. This is vital for the continuing legitimacy of government which is failing rapidly. Case in point, look at what has happened in the Vegas shooting case.
I have been slammed on this board for suggesting the police not be allowed to decline to answer ANY question in which they have knowledge (outside of the threat to life exception). We must change the idea that our fed, state, local officials and police are somehow allowed to operate in secrecy. They are NOT.
The FBI is part of the executive branch.
The President can comment on and declassify anything he wants to.
Political ramifications are his to bear.
Have any of you seen the “Kate” article?
The model that works for me is the following.
We’re still stuck with the corrupt, uniparty Congress left over from the lawless Obama Administration, a Congress that never wanted outsider Trump as president.
And just like post-17th Amendment ratification career lawmakers have front-ended all kinds of unconstitutional federal actions with non-elected federal bureaucrats, the constitutionally undefined FBI is just another front-end scapegoat that Congress hides behind to do its dirty work imo, trying to get rid of Trump in this example.
Patriots need to elect as much of a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress in the 2018 midterm elections that will support Trump’s vision for MAGA.
Just say that it is intuitively obvious to the casual observer by all the stonewalling we have gotten from DOJ and the witness.
The only reason nothing has happened to any of the players in this grand conspiracy to OVERTHROW THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is because the Leadership of BOTH parties is Heavily Involved.
Congress has ALL the power in washington, the executive and judicial branch operate according to the whims of CONGRESS!
“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”
Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions.
Congress can Remove the President
Congress can remove the head of every executive agency Congress can remove ALL of their employees
Congress can Abolish every agency they so choose
Congress can remove EVERY JUDGE IN AMERICA, including every supreme court justice.
Congress can abolish every federal court except the supreme Court
Congress can decide which cases the Judicial Branch can hear and decide
CONGRESS can Imprison ANYONE they want for any reason they so desire for as long as they wish. EXCEPT The President and Vice President
Congress can declare WAR
No other governing body has even 10% of the power CONGRESS has!!
CONGRESS IS ALLOWING ALL OF IT!!!
Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)
If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.
Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.
Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.
Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.
Some references
[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html
[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf
[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/
In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.
In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.
How much do we really know about the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy, or about Watergate? Or Iran-Contra? Or the Clinton Chronicles? Same thing here. The question is whether they get Trump. Not whether anything happens to them, because it won’t.
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.