Hillary could be “Scandal-lass”.
Brennan “Scandal-louse”.
The whole crooked crew at DOJ / FBI / DNC / Fusion GPS / Perkins Coie / etc. “Scandal-lice”.
The Obama WH “Scandal-house”….

You may spell it ‘scandal-less’, but I think it’s pronounced ‘scandalous’.

Yep, slowly, carefully, methodically, patiently getting those ducks in line…
= = = =
“A scandal-free administration.”

I prefer the more mellifluous “scandal-less”….

But that’s just it.

There was NO problem (except Trump, of course, who HAD to be dealt with).

NO problem at all.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trey-gowdy-claims-fbi-relied-on-clinton-ally-sidney-blumenthal-to-corroborate-steele-dossier/

“I’ve seen the spreadsheet, Martha. I have seen each factual assertion listed in that dossier, and then I’ve seen the FBI’s justification. And when you’re citing newspaper articles as corroboration for a factual assertion that you have made, you don’t need an FBI agent to go do a Google search,” said Gowdy, a former member of the House Intelligence Committee who now serves as a Fox News contributor, in remarks first noted by the Daily Caller. “When the name Sidney Blumenthal is included as part of your corroboration, and when you’re the world’s leading law-enforcement agency, you have a problem.”

I was under the impression that Comey referred to the Steele dossier as “salacious” and “unverified” (or is that “unverifiable”?)

What’s up?

(Or is it a case of “different audiences”?)

I assume Johnson is here referring to Mueller.

If so, is Johnson joking (given the Mueller’s extremely partisan “function” and goal)?

Or is he being very ironic?

Or is this a “softening up” campaign—a prelude to going after Mueller?

Time to bring back firing squads. Any other form is cruel and unusual.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said he supports Barr’s move but signaled concern that a Justice Department investigation could add roadblocks to their ability to force individuals to respond to the GOP investigations on Capitol Hill.

“I hope it doesn’t hamper it. I’m supportive of the fact that the attorney general is looking into all potential problems, potential crimes,” he said. “But I just want to make sure it does not hamper congressional investigations because our purpose is about … public policy and informing the public.”

Asked about his previous concerns that a criminal investigation negatively impacts congressional probes, he added: “It does. It absolutely does. It prevents us from getting access … because they’ll say we can’t release that because it will affect our criminal investigation.”
…
Johnson said on Tuesday that while the Justice Department would likely focus on “prosecutable crimes,” congressional oversight has “different purposes” and could include “wrongdoing that doesn’t meet the level of prosecutorial crimes,” leaks or improper influence into a campaign that could be prime areas for congressional oversight.

“We just did this backwards. We should have started with congressional investigations unimpeded by criminal proceedings. Once we issued our reports then we could refer that to the criminal justice system,” Johnson said about the initial report on Russia’s election interference.

Asked if they were about to do it “backwards” again, he added, “Yes, but now we’re two years into this and the attorney general is going to have to hop on this. I wish the special counsel would have looked into all of the issues.”

Graham on Tuesday appeared to outline potential areas where his focus could differ from the Justice Department, including addressing what if any legislation is needed in the wake of the 2016 election.

But he added that when “you’ve got oversight and prosecutions going on at the same time, that could be a very dangerous combination.”

I disagree with Sen. Johnson on this. One of the dangerous aspects of the combination is the grandstanding that occurs in Congressional investigations, which are all about rumor, innuendo, spinning – if not outright lying, and a total lack of due process and presumption of innocence of any kind.

If Congress is investigating something that is NOT a crime, but then turns up criminal activity, they should stop immediately and refer it to the DOJ, neither finishing their report first, nor running concurrently with a criminal probe.

Another dangerous part of the combination is when Congress tries to investigate some act that is not statutorily criminal (such as a violation of their process rules), but pretends like it is and tries to imply to the public that the act is more nefarious than an in-house set-to among the factions.

If Congress is concerned that an actual crime has been committed, then they should send out trained law enforcement investigators to see if there is anything worthy of a grand jury indictment.
If their target is tried and found guilty, then they no longer need the political investigation, other than for maybe tying up loose ends and closing legal loopholes that might have been used by the perp – a legitimate legislative function.
If their target is not convicted, they can still go forward with the “political” investigation, somewhat like a civil action after a criminal trial, but on a foundation of evidence already litigated.

If the target is not even indicted, they can then run their kangaroo courts unimpeded.
But if it leaks (hah) that the grand jury returned a no bill, then the public has a better handle on why the investigation is being pursued.

FWIW, the FBI “investigation” of Clinton should have gone to a grand jury, and she should be in jail.