The DOJ’s defiance of Congress
Kimberly Strassel in the WSJ on the real constitutional crisis that’s going on:
The Constitution set up Congress to act as a check on the executive branch””and it’s got more than enough cause to do some checking here. Yet the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation have spent a year disrespecting Congress””flouting subpoenas, ignoring requests, hiding witnesses, blacking out information, and leaking accusations.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has not been allowed to question a single current or former Justice or FBI official involved in this affair. Not one. He’s also more than a year into his demand for the transcript of former national security adviser Mike Flynn’s infamous call with the Russian ambassador, as well as reports from the FBI agents who interviewed Mr. Flynn. And still nothing.
Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, is being stonewalled on at least three inquiries…
Not only that, but the Democrats and the press (redundant, I know) would have us believe that it’s Congress and the right who are out of line for questioning or doubting the DOJ and its veracity and fine intentions, despite all the reasons there are to doubt that veracity and those fine intentions (and as though the left itself doesn’t doubt that veracity and those fine intentions when it suits the left’s purposes).
This intransigence [on the part of the DOJ] is creating an unprecedented toxicity between law enforcement and Congress, undermining what has long been a cooperative and vital relationship. It is also pushing lawmakers ever closer to holding Justice Department officials in contempt or impeaching them. Congress hasn’t impeached a member of the executive branch (presidents excepted) since the 19th century. Let’s agree such a step would amount to a real crisis. And the pressure to use these tools to get disclosure is growing, as congressional Republicans worry about losing their oversight authority in the midterms, and suspect the Justice Department is stringing them along for that very reason.
So make no mistake about it. As I wrote yesterday, none of this investigation of the excesses of the DOJ re the Trump campaign would be going on if the GOP didn’t control Congress. This fact should be driven home by every GOP participant in the Congressional campaign for 2018, because I believe most people don’t connect those dots and realize what the effect of a Democrat-controlled Congress would be (and by “most people” I include a lot of people who call themselves conservatives and are angry at what they call the GOPe).
As Strassel wrote, “congressional Republicans worry about losing their oversight authority in the midterms,” and well they should. In fact, we should all worry about it.
Strassel ends her piece this way:
…[Trump should] declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the public see the truth. That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for itself, to “undermine” an investigation. And it would end the Justice Department’s campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to its reputation with the public and with Congress.
No doubt the Democrats would shriek if he were to do that, but I agree that it may be the only remedy at this point.
I’m going off with the grandkids for Memorial Day.
I hope the Republic is still here when I get back.
Best regards to everyone –
Grassley hasn’t been allowed to question FBI officials? I’ve been reading, forgot where, that at least three FBI people have been begging via back channels to be subpoenaed by congress, so that they can spill their beans.
These people feel that they will be crushed as whistleblowers. A subpoena would allow them to charge legal expenses to the Feds. Grassley put out a semi-hostile public statement very recently stating effectively, that the whistleblower statutes are perfectly adequate and that he sees no need to resort to subpoenas.
What the heck is going on? I have no idea. I like Grassley generally, but I’m 90% sure that FBI whistleblowers would NOT be adequately protected under WB statutes.
Here is one of the articles. Grassley says that congress would exercise the power of the purse if FBI bosses sought retribution against underlings. Ha! Good one!
Then there is that pesky midterm election. How’s that power of the purse going to work under Nancy Pelosi? Grassley used to be my Rep. in the House a long time ago and has a long track record of being a good guy, though maybe not a wizard. None of this makes any sense.
Why doesn’t Grassley just issue the subpoenas? Would he have to override Dems in committee? Is this some “blue slip” thing akin to the filibuster?
Or is there some large deep state power block that simple doesn’t want to blow the lid off of pervasive long term FBI/DOJ corruption?
I’m increasingly afraid that the end result of all this investigating will be a big fat nothing.
Isn’t the DOJ still in the Executive branch? Thus Pres. Trump is presumably the CEO in charged of it? Why would a DOJ headed by his own pick for Attorney General be stonewalling or AWOL on legitimate Congressional orders for testimony or records or whatever?
I must be overlooking something.
Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, is being stonewalled on at least three inquiries…
The Deep State holds the levers of power. The elected politicians are just there as a smokescreen, as a public front a lot of times. The veneer on this little show is getting thinner and thinner as time goes on. People are probably thinking about getting rid of the pretend show soon.
Julie near Chicago:
I believe that you are overlooking a couple of things.
The first is that I am pretty sure that Sessions’ recusal takes him out of the picture on this. Rosenstein would be the one in charge at the DOJ. Rosenstein has been very very iffy in general—he’s the one who chose Mueller, for example. He also approved the FBI raid on Michael Cohen.
The FBI is under the DOJ, but the FBI is headed by Christopher Wray, who replaced Comey. Wray has been stonewalling too, as described in this WSJ editorial. Why? It’s unclear, but it could be a combination of trying to protect the agency from more scandal, as well as general turf-protection and caution.
Speaking of Deep State, looks like the author of this blog deletes comments she doesn’t like. Typical. I was on your side anyway, did you not like what I want to happen to Hillary? Stop acting like this is business as usual this is WAR.
IMO, Trump and Sessions are conducting a stealthy operation in order to show the public these conspirators had their pants (or pantsuit) off and were doing nasty things to destroy an elected POTUS. Trump is the bad cop and Sessions the good cop. I hope they show no mercy and give no quarter when the trap is set. There needs to be heads on pikes erected inside the beltway…. metaphorically of course.
Neo used the word finessing the other day and the best I remember about my bridge playing years ago that was trying to get your opponents to play their cards in to clear the way for your tump cards to become a lay down. In other words be cagey long enough to slam the crap out of them at the proper time. At least that’s the way I remember playing bridge.
My brother in law who is now a retired super smart successful, top of his class lawyer and a man who mostly takes the Democrat point of view was appalled when Trump was elected. Not long after the election when Sessions recused himself and name Mueller my brother in law was upset because he did not think Sessions needed to recuse himself and by definition Trump had the power to be an untouchable.
At that time for a lot of people Trump was unthinkable, unknowledgeable, undeserving and frankly unable to be the president of the United States. Now with a year and a few months under his belt it appears to those on the right and a lot of those in the middle that Trump has not done a bad job and he might end up doing more really good stuff in spite of media and Democrats who don’t want our nation to experience success under Trump.
Trump is winning some more over and if he had played a heavy hand in the beginning that might or might not have worked I think he would have been tied up in so much petty challenges than he has been. The longer this plays out it might be to Trump’s advantage, just like old BJ Clinton got a whole lot of under dog sympathy when Congress piled on him I think Trump is gaining some ground there.
Last thing, Trump does have, in his own way, some of Clinton’s charm and the ability to win some over like he has this week paying attention to black people and little kids. What if he starts attracting some clear thinking people who don’t want to follow the liberal establishment rules?
This November we will find out if Trump, allowing himself to be picked on and picked apart has won once more. The longer the DOJ jacks around and the more goofy things the left says in opposition to Trump the better it might be turning out a strong right wing vote. What if Trump declassifies all this stuff a couple of weeks before the election? That might be good timing.
We know they’re as dirty as can be and we know that Trump can expose their dirty laundry whenever he wishes. So his apparent hesitancy in ripping the curtain aside has to be intentional. So too with Sessions apparent disinterest.
So too with Sen Grassley’s refusal (so far) to issue subpoenas.
It’s also a cast iron certainty that Obama knew what was going on and if not directly, at the least gave his tacit approval to all of this. Either Obama ordered it or officials at the very top of Obama’s administration ordered it. No way Comey or McCabe or Brennan or Clapper conducted a black op without higher approval.
The Deep State is NOT in charge, they’re highly placed lackeys.
Trump is going after the people at the very top not the frontmen.
“I think I may have discovered what the DOJ & FBI are desperately trying to hide”
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/999878016766361600.html
Secrecy in government affairs is anathema to democracy and usually motivated to obfuscate and outright lie. Transparency is truth.
So the argument here is that the Trump Admin is violating the US Constitution?
Thank you Manju for a marvelous example of how those on the left twist the truth. And since you know that you’re misrepresenting our position, it demonstrates your inability to come up with anything better.
“So the argument here…”
Oh how precious you are Manju, bless your heart. It is plain that you are not stupid. The glorious chairman mao would applaud until you are no longer useful and you are dumped on Positively 4th Street.
Somewhere around 200 million died at the whim of leftist madmen during the 20th Century. You have every right to be proud of your ideology. And no, the Nazi were not right wing. So which party supported slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, and the welfare soft enslavement? It sure wasn’t the right side of the political establishment.
Daughter and her family will arrive soon. Grandchildren!
Have a great, safe weekend everyone, including Manju.
Parker you also don’t seem stupid but you’re trotting out that weak old argument about what party supported the KKK and Jim Crow. Of course it was the Democrats, it was a lot of the Southerners. BUT, ever heard of the Southern Strategy? All of those racists left the Democrats in the 50s and 60s when they started school desegregation and al that other stuff, and the Republicans saw an opportunity to siphon them off, and they did. Who does the South tend to vote for now?
Don’t use childish arguments, and argue actual policy, not parties.
Johanson, I hate to do this to you but this…
is wildly inaccurate, though a common Left-wing meme.
I’m locked an loaded with data here, all of which comes from either academic sources or the Civil Rights Movement itself. None of my sources are Right-wing.
I can slice and dice this in many ways. But let me start with some easy to verify raw data.
Below, a list of all the Dem Senators who voted against the 1964 CRA:
Byrd, Harry [D]
Byrd, Robert [D]
Eastland, James [D]
Ellender, Allen [D]
Ervin, Samuel [D]
Fulbright, James [D]
Gore, Albert [D]
Hill, Joseph [D]
Holland, Spessard [D]
Johnston, Olin [D]
Jordan, Benjamin [D]
Long, Russell [D]
McClellan, John [D]
Robertson, Absalom [D]
Russell, Richard [D]
Smathers, George [D]
Sparkman, John [D]
Stennis, John [D]
Talmadge, Herman [D]
Thurmond, J. [D]
Walters, Herbert [D]
I defy you to find more than 1 who became Republican.
Um, Manju? That’s old hat. Whenever I have a discussion with a conservative who says he’s really got me, inevitably they list a bunch of politicians and ask who switched to Rs. And to that I say…
Who says anything about the Southern Strategy being geared to switching politicians?
Johanson,
Weak old argument? Really? LBJ didn’t say niggers (his word choice) would be voting for democrats for 50 years after the passage of his welfare reform to allow more benefits if a father was absent? Manju, bless his heart knows the facts. (Sometimes) That is why he is informed, but imo, often off course, and you are an ignorant fill in the _______.
I can parry comments with Manju, I can even respect his often adherence to dogma, but he/she/xer/etc is honest. You, Johanson are something else which I will not speak of.
Johanson,
While we are all familiar with the accusation, I’ve never seen solid evidence that the Republican party “siphoned off” the southern racists who had heretofore aligned themselves with the Democrat party.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is generally considered the event that triggered the departure of southern democrats from the democrat party.
In the passage of that Act; in the House 91 democrats voted against it VS 34 republicans. In the Senate, 21 democrats voted against it VS 6 republicans…
What rational basis then was there for southern racists to presume that the republican party would be sympathetic to their racism?
The Civil Rights Act was enacted on July 2, 1964.
Quickly following it was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the legislative engine for Johnson’s “War on Poverty” which was signed into law by President Johnson on August 20, 1964.
War on Poverty * :
I would argue that at that point, the republican establishment still strongly objected to the expansion of the federal government. While the southern states had never lost their allegiance to ‘states rights’. So they happily joined the republicans in voting against the democrat’s expansion of federal powers.
There was no way for the republicans to prevent the southern states from switching their votes from the democrat position to the republican position. This despite the opportunity for the democrats to shed their prior label of supporting racism and now shift it to the republican party.
Ever since it’s been a canard that democrats can unfairly bludgeon republicans with… republicans are no more racist than democrats, we all abhor that sin. The difference between us is that we do not believe that the propositions the democrats offer are effective, in fact we argue that they are all to often counter-productive doing far more harm than good. Even more importantly, they increasingly pose a grave danger to essential liberties.
Instead of responding rationally, liberals simply call into question our motives.
* “Since its beginning, U.S. taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.”
Wow, parker gets personal.
And wow, there was racism back then? Shocker! And that quote’s ben sort of debated if it’s true or not, I wouldn’t doubt if it is but still.
But hey, why not listen to the Republican Lee Atwater’s actual words in an interview who discusses the Southern Strategy which he helped come up with?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ
Hope you’re not as nasty to your grandchilren than you seem to be on the internet. People get on here and act so angry, it’s really sad.
Geoffrey Britain, yes the CRA triggers Dems to leave that party. And do you think they suddenly stopped voting? I wonder who they may have started to vote for?
Also, go listen to Lee Atwater’s recording I put above. He knew what he was doing, it’s not like an accident.
I mean, parties switch around sometimes. We don’t have Whigs anymore.
Johanson:
I’ve listened to Atwater’s words a long time ago. I’ve also read extensively about the entire thing. Perhaps you’ve only read the propaganda on the left about it. If so, time to look at this, for example. You can also take a look at this.
And by the way, Muh/Johanson, sock puppets are not allowed either.
But no doubt you know that. Just as you know that you’re a troll.
Muh/Johanson:
By the way, even in your “Muh” persona, when you were pretending to be on the right, there were various “tells” that indicated you were a troll and not on the right at all.
Muh/Johanson:
You’re not only a troll, you’re deceitful. And you’re certainly not on my “side.”
Oh, and by the way—since most of the readers here didn’t see what you wrote and what I deleted (twice, because you must have thought it was so very clever that you felt the need to write it twice)—I will mention that it was something along the lines of wanting to see Hillary Clinton thrown in a men’s jail and have to “service” the “animals” and/or “Mandingos” there.
That’s hardly just a comment I just “don’t like,” and it’s deceitful to characterize it as that. Actually, your comments were a leftist fantasy of what people on the right think, but that fantasy is something only the leftist mind seems to be able to come up with. Funny thing, but it seems there is more racism on left than right.
Go figure.
BUT, ever heard of the Southern Strategy? All of those racists left the Democrats in the 50s and 60s when they started school desegregation and al that other stuff, and the Republicans saw an opportunity to siphon them off, and they did.
The problem with the Southern Strategy premise is that at the Presidential level, Republicans were competitive in the South from 1952 on. Eisenhower took 48% of the Southern vote in 1952 and also won 4 states in the South. Eisenhower won a higher percentage of the Southern vote in 1956 than Goldwater did in 1964. That doesn’t support the Southern Strategy hypothesis, does it?
The Myth of the Racist Republicans.
Southern Strategy, Southern Schmategy.
Republican Share of Presidential Vote in the South
1932 18.7%
1936 19.1%
1940 20.8%
1944 25.2%
1948 26.5%
1952 48.1%
1956 48.9%
1960 46.0%
1964 48.7%
(Source: Wikipedia data on Presidential elections)
Gringo:
See my comment right above yours.
Great minds think alike. 🙂
Rather amusing that the same commenter wants “Mandingos” to do nasty things to Hillary, while spouting “Southern Strategy.” Oh well, Stalin was a seminary student at one time.
Neo,
Thanks for your explanation. I did think of Sessions’ recusal, after I submitted the comment, natch, but the ins-and-outs of the DOJ/FBI in all this is a bit out of my ken. :>(
Johanson, here’s a snapshot for you. The 33 Governors and Senators from the 11 former confederate states in 1974:
George Wallace D
John Sparkman D
James Allen D
Dale Bumpers D
John L. McClellan D
J. William Fulbright D
Reubin Askew D
Lawton Chiles D
Richard Stone D
Jimmy Carter D
Sam Nunn D
Herman E. Talmadge D
Edwin W. Edwards D
Bennett Johnston, Jr. D
Russell B. Long D
James E. Holshouser, Jr. R
Jesse Helms R
Sam Ervin D
William Waller D
John C. Stennis D
James Eastland D
Winfield Dunn R
Bill Brock R
Howard Baker R
Dolph Briscoe D
Lloyd Bentsen D
John Tower R
John C. West D
Strom Thurmond R
Ernest Hollings D
Mills E. Godwin, Jr. R
Harry F. Byrd, Jr. I, but caucused with Dems
William L. Scott R
As you can see, Republicans held only 8 of the 33 positions.
Helms and Thurmond should’ve been taken out and shot, no doubt. But Baker was pro-cviil rights.
More importantly: Fulbright, Johnston, Eastland, Ervin, Wallace, Sparkman, Wallace, etc. All Segregationists. All unrepentant at the time. all Dems.
Unless your telling me racist voters did’t support this crew, I can’t see a way for your above assertion to be true. Dems predictably maintained a stranglehold on the region because they ran the more racist candidates.
The Congress appropriates moneys to the various Executive branch departments. I believe the President, once the appropriations are law, is duty bound to spend the money.
IIRC Nixon attempted to not spend some of the money, was taken to court over that, and it was decided against him.
If Congress wants the information all they need to do is withhold appropriations to the DOJ etc. By law they can legally not appropriate money to specific entities within a department.
Someone not providing what Congress wants can find him or herself without a paycheck if Congress wishes it to be so and the President signs the legislation.
Congress appears to be negligent in its duties to the American
people. But that has probably been going on since March 5, 1789. The day after the 1st Congress began meeting.
Helms and Thurmond should’ve been taken out and shot, no doubt. But Baker was pro-cviil rights.
Seems a bit extreme.
There were federalist, constitutionalist, and Whig-liberal critiques of civil rights laws. See Sam Ervin’s assessment of them published in Modern Age ca. 1983. He was retired at that point, so not concerned with electoral consequences. See Also Gottfried Dietze’s critique penned in 1968. We’ve been learning the unfortunate downstream consequences of these measures in the last few years. Dietze could see it coming.
Helms and Thurmond should’ve been taken out and shot, no doubt.
Strom’s performance is not as straightforwardly bad as some may assume. His impregnating a black maid employed by his father is not to his credit. OTOH, his financially supporting his child is to his credit.
Strom’s behavior as a Republican was better than his behavior as a Democrat. South Carolina Hall Of Fame: Matthew Perry.
The New York Times didn’t see fit to mention Strom’s role in Matthew Perry’s becoming the first black from the South to sit on the federal bench.M.J. Perry Jr., Legal Pioneer, Dies at 89.
Surprise, surprise. 🙂
From Goupstate, a South Carolina website. District judge, former Spartanburg attorney Matthew Perry dies.
Then we have Wikipedia’s version: Matthew J. Perry.
At least better than the New York Times. Though “even supported” is rather different from the actual fact of Strom having nominated Matthew Perry.
Helms and Thurmond should’ve been taken out and shot, no doubt.
More evidence that Strom’s behavior as a Republican was better than his behavior as a Democrat. Strom hired Thomas Moss, a black staffer in 1970. From the New York Times in 1994.ON WASHINGTON; Old Smoothie.
Correction: the Federal judge nomination was in 1976.
From Jet Magazine, a black-oriented magazine, and thus not one likely to massage the facts in favor of Strom.
The only Senator from the South mentioned is Lloyd Bentsen, who had been elected to the Senate in November 1970- which means that Bentsen’s appointment of a black staffer preceded Strom’s by only a month or two, at most. Bentsen didn’t have the Deep South background of Strom Thurmond, as Bentsen was from the Rio Grande Valley, an area that didn’t have a lot of blacks, and his paternal grandparents immigrated from Denmark.
GB, yes it’s only reasonable to conclude that Obama not only knew about it but gave the green light.
And he must be protected at all costs.
Just as was protected in the HRC email scandal, which led to the need of protecting her.
And just as he had to be protected all the way down the line: IRS scandal. Obamacare (“Jonathan Gruber was just some advisor”…), JCPOA (echo chamber), UN Resolution 2334 and collusion with the PA, etc.
To be sure, “fundamentally transforming the USA”
Another blogger, Bookroom, had a post and Prager video discussing the Southern Stategy and how if all the racists left for the Republican party in the mid-60’s it took 20-30 years for their votes to follow them.
Most southern states stayed with Democrat majorities for decades after the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Would somebody who knows the law (Neo?) kindly explain to me why President Trump can’t just ignore Mueller’s requests for documents and interviews the way Rosenstein and Wray ignore subpoenas from Congress? Does the President have less authority than the Deputy Attorney General and the Director of the FBI? Is the Special Prosecutor more powerful than Congress?
bof,
In both cases it is the Trump Admin resisting a subpoena.
I know this sounds weird, but the reason Trump (ie, Rosenstein and Wray) can resist Congress is because of Executive Privilege. The Executive’s privilege is especially strong on matters of national security, which the investigation into potential coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia certainly falls under.
Such privilege cannot be invoked in regards to Meuller’s subpoena’s, or at least it’s much more limited.
So that’s why Trump can effectively stonewall Congress (even if it’s not invoked congress knows it can be). But that’s the last thing Trump wants to do, I can almost hear you scream!
Trump has the power to hand over documents, to declassify them, etc. Presumably such documents prove his theory about a Watergate-level scandal in the previous admin true. But yet he stonewalls.
It’s like he’s promising to deliver Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate…but somehow never quite gets there.
Ooooh. “southern strategy” muttered in tones of horror and disgust. What was the southern strategy? Coded words.
So Mr & Mrs. Smith complain their kid is going to be bused across town to a crummy school with an hour on the bus each way and no extracurriculars. Liberals sneer at Mr. & Mrs. Smith as evil, rotten, racist rednecks.
Republicans’ coded words….. “Darn shame.”
The horror!
Geoffrey Britain Says:
May 25th, 2018 at 7:33 pm
“I think I may have discovered what the DOJ & FBI are desperately trying to hide”
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/999878016766361600.html
* *
I’m trying to catch up and this is what I get — btw, who writes these error notices anyway – the grammar is atrocious:
Ooops, something is wrong!
I’m sorry the bot is having a hard time to unroll this.
Thread author has been suspended on Twitter, Thread Reader can not access this.