Yes, they can make noise separately, but they have no enforcement powers.MooreTrucker said:Doesn't this mean either the House OR the Senate separately?Quote:
Congress (or one of its chambers) may hold officers in contempt,
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-under-probe-in-ukraine-for-alleged-link-to-top-prosecutors-2016-ouster-reportQuote:
Investigators in Ukraine have launched a probe into former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden over allegations that he pressured Ukrainian officials to fire the country's top prosecutor in 2016, according to a report.
The Ukrainian probe was launched in response to a court order, after the ousted prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, made an appeal for action in the matter, Shokin's attorney, Oleksandr Teleshetsky, told The Washington Post.
"They need to investigate this. They have no other alternative," Teleshetsky told the Post. "They are required to do this by the decision of the court. If they don't, then they violate a whole string of procedural norms."
Quote:
The leak that fueled the Thursday NYT bombshell was likely placed in anticipation of the formal release of even more damaging information about how U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies potentially abused their authority to punish the government's political enemies. The article specifically references the forthcoming release of an extensive inspector general review of potential improprieties at the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Sorry I overlooked that. I don't understand why Sidney Powell tweeted that out, unless the report is about to come out. Horowitz has never released a report on that subject matter.texaggierm said:
That article is from 2019.
drcrinum said:Sorry I overlooked that. I don't understand why Sidney Powell tweeted that out, unless the report is about to come out. Horowitz has never released a report on that subject matter.texaggierm said:
That article is from 2019.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-orders-hillary-clinton-deposition-to-address-private-emails-there-is-still-more-to-learndrcrinum said:
Expect a whole lotta "I don't recall".
He has to do that right now. McConnell is keeping his calendar clear for coronavirus and other emergency matters. Do the closed door stuff right now and then open hearings when he knows what they will say.Quote:
Closed door hearings. No names so far.
Ouch.Quote:
Papadopoulos, a Republican and former Trump campaign adviser, received just 2.3 % of the vote. Uygur, the creator and host of the popular progressive talk show "The Young Turks," won just 4.6%, in the race for the state's 25th congressional district seat.
Quote:
A secretive federal court on Wednesday effectively barred F.B.I. officials involved in the wiretapping of a former Trump campaign adviser from appearing before it in other cases at least temporarily, the latest fallout from an internal inquiry into the bureau's surveillance of the aide.
A 19-page opinion and order by James E. Boasberg, the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, also largely accepted changes the F.B.I. has said it will make to its process for seeking national-security wiretaps following a damning inspector general report about errors and omissions in applications to monitor the adviser, Carter Page.
But Judge Boasberg ordered law enforcement officials to specifically swear in future cases that the applications to the court contain "all information that might reasonably call into question the accuracy of the information or the reasonableness of any F.B.I. assessment in the application, or otherwise raise doubts about the requested findings."
While Judge Boasberg also ordered the F.B.I. to report back about its progress on the changes, the move essentially brought to a close the court's intervention after the report. His predecessor as chief judge in December had ordered the F.B.I. to explain what it would do to regain the confidence of the judges who review wiretap requests....
Quote:
...Horowitz is saying, point blank, that the DOJ and/or FBI could, if they wanted to, dispense with predication requirements and just start investigating for any reason--or none at all. In other words, according to Horowitz, if the DoJ/FBI decided they wanted to assure that random citizens were not national security threats--and protecting against national security threats is an authorized purpose for the DoJ/FBI--they could start investigating random citizens for that purpose with no predication whatsoever regarding the individuals being investigated. Simply by changing their guidelines. That, according to Horowitz, would be fully compatible with our Constitution--it would simply be a matter of whether the DoJ could get away with that politically. Does that sound right to you?
Of course, that's pretty much what happened to Michael Flynn--under the interpretation of events most favorable to the FBI and DoJ. As nearly as we can determine the FBI and DoJ decided to find out if they could catch Flynn in a factually inaccurate statement, even though 1) Flynn's phone call to the Russian ambassador not only did not violate any law, it was actually part of his official duties, and 2) the FBI and DoJ already knew what Flynn and the ambassador had discussed and knew it was totally above board. There was no predication for the investigation--it was a test of Flynn's memory. The booby prize, in the form of a "lying to the FBI" prosecution, went to Flynn......
How in the world was this not already a requirement?Quote:
But Judge Boasberg ordered law enforcement officials to specifically swear in future cases that the applications to the court contain "all information that might reasonably call into question the accuracy of the information or the reasonableness of any F.B.I. assessment in the application, or otherwise raise doubts about the requested findings."
He was a surrogate for the Trump campaign and had some contacts with Kislyak. Trump campaign + ever spoken with or have shook hands with a Russian=Trump campaign Russian collusion delusion.SpreadsheetAg said:
WTf? Why was Jeff under investigation?
It was. That is what the Woods Procedures were formulated (by Bob Mueller, no less) to address the last time FISA abuse became an issue.captkirk said:How in the world was this not already a requirement?Quote:
But Judge Boasberg ordered law enforcement officials to specifically swear in future cases that the applications to the court contain "all information that might reasonably call into question the accuracy of the information or the reasonableness of any F.B.I. assessment in the application, or otherwise raise doubts about the requested findings."
aggiehawg said:
That is what the Woods Procedures were formulated (by Bob Mueller, no less) to address the last time FISA abuse became an issue.
RUUUSSSSSIIIIAAANNNSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SpreadsheetAg said:
WTf? Why was Jeff under investigation?
The fix was clearly in when you saw it was Boasberg and then he appointed David Kris. Add a few meaningless sentences to the guidelines so that "never again" but ignore that there were already strict procedures and laws that were intentionally violated.aggiehawg said:It was. That is what the Woods Procedures were formulated (by Bob Mueller, no less) to address the last time FISA abuse became an issue.captkirk said:How in the world was this not already a requirement?Quote:
But Judge Boasberg ordered law enforcement officials to specifically swear in future cases that the applications to the court contain "all information that might reasonably call into question the accuracy of the information or the reasonableness of any F.B.I. assessment in the application, or otherwise raise doubts about the requested findings."
So basically these procedural reforms are like socialism. THIS time it's going to work!aggiehawg said:It was. That is what the Woods Procedures were formulated (by Bob Mueller, no less) to address the last time FISA abuse became an issue.captkirk said:How in the world was this not already a requirement?Quote:
But Judge Boasberg ordered law enforcement officials to specifically swear in future cases that the applications to the court contain "all information that might reasonably call into question the accuracy of the information or the reasonableness of any F.B.I. assessment in the application, or otherwise raise doubts about the requested findings."
Agree. The Woods Procedures were not followed in the Carter Page case. Trisha Andersen admitted that years ago. Her normal duties in vetting the applications were truncated by Baker, her superior and testified to that.Quote:
The fix was clearly in when you saw it was Boasberg and then he appointed David Kris. Add a few meaningless sentences to the guidelines so that "never again" but ignore that there were already strict procedures and laws that were intentionally violated.
