Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted on Wednesday to greenlight subpoenas and depositions as part of an investigation into the FBI’s Russia probe and the Obama administration.
The 8-6 party line vote authorizes Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the chairman of the committee, to issue a combination of subpoenas and set up closed-door depositions with approximately 40 individuals.
The votes come less than two months before the November election, injecting fresh acrimony into the Wednesday committee meeting where Johnson accused Democrats of a “coordinated spear” against his probes. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the panel, accused Republicans of a “partisan fishing expedition.”
“I’m disappointed that our committee is once again meeting to discuss the authorization of subpoenas instead … of the serious challenges facing Americans,” Peters said. “Your own public comments … state that your desire to reinvestigate these matters demonstrates the alarming partisan nature of this investigation which is designed to influence the presidential election.”
The votes give Johnson the power to set up depositions with dozens of officials he previously got authorization to subpoena in June.
But those subpoenas ran into a snag in August, when Peters accused Johnson of violating the committee’s rules by trying to set up the interview without support from Peters or a majority of the committee to formally issue the deposition notice.
Johnson blasted Peters on Wednesday accusing him of forcing the votes to authorize the depositions “based on an absurd interpretation of committee rules.”
But Wednesday’s vote also authorizes subpoenas of new individuals including former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Justice Department official Bruce Ohr.
read more:
Replies
I suggest you try a course in reading comprehension.
I never said that case law established these crimes. I said that according to your logic, these crimes didn't exist and could not be tried until they were codified in a written law. Now I'm going further. Even if such a crime was committed but if it didn't follow exactly the description in the law, it cannot be prosecuted, either, since judges can't use case law or interpret the law to include crimes that don't follow the law to the t. Criminals love your "law theory". Are you on the payroll of the mob or someone like that?
I'm glad you aren't making a fool of yourself. You are quite the legal scholar, and you are very intelligent, aren't you? Now I'm really impressed. I'm bowing out and I'm yielding the floor to your outstanding intelligence and legal mind.
How does one break the law where there is no law to break?
Excuse me... The laws against child pornography exist as the result of Legislative Acts, not case law. Every one of the criminal acts you listed was defined as criminal conduct by state legislatures or Congress, NOT CASE LAW. Case law has never been used to 'establish' criminal law. Criminal and civil law is the creation of State Legislatures and Congress.
Courts are prohibited from creating law by any means... case law, the law of the court, precedent, settled law, etc. are all constructs of the Court and are fiat law. The dicta of the Court may be used in deciding cases but it may not be used to create law itself. When the public needs new standards (Laws) for defining criminal conduct they must petition Congress or State Legislatures for such laws. Courts can not create or codify criminal conduct using 'case law' or jurisprudence.
Every crime you listed became criminal conduct after being codified as criminal conduct by legislative act. Some of the crimes you listed have been criminal conduct for centuries, they are part of the existing criminal code. However, some criminal conduct was not codified until recently. Money Laundering was NOT PROSECUTED until recently; until 'money laundering' had been codified by an Act of Congress, it could not be prosecuted.
Again, get an education or research your comments before making a fool out of yourself.
Dang. I didn't think you could get any better but you keep outdoing yourself. That's impressive.
Let's go with this statement. "Without a codified law, to breach/break, there is no offense ... no breach of law... to bring before the Courts." This basically means child pornography could not be tried in court until a law gets signed that defines it because there was no codified law that was broken. There was no money laundering, terrorism, hacking, identity theft, etc., either. That's a cool world you are designing in your head.
I don't practice law but I went to law school. There you learn how to find the facts in a case to determine what law applies, which is often one of the most difficult things to do when you work on a case. There you also learn and appreciate what a good lawyer does. I know you disagree vehemently but I can tell you that Barr is one heck of a good lawyer and by far the best one on Trump's legal team, and probably one of the best if not the best lawyer in the country.
FYI I'm one of the reasons America is great again. I support creating a country where private incentive is rewarded, where our individual decisions and efforts matter. Do not tax success, deregulate to give businesses and private incentives a better chance for success! That's why I support Trump and the Republican Party no matter what. That's why I do not go around talking about the many things Trump has not done or the many things he has finde wrong. He has done plenty good for the country and has made it great again. Just look around and tell me if you rather go back to the obummer years. I sure don't.
Cases in law are cases in law... meaning there must be a law to have standing before a court. And yes, if a complaint is presented to a judge, where no law applies, the Judge must reject the filing as having no standing; no position in the law to claim a breach exists. And, yes, the complainant must petition Congress or the local and State government to legislate law(s) to define what constitutes a breach in the publics' rights before a breach in the law can exist.
There are real problems with new technology and Congress is aware of it ... they are working on creating laws where they deem it necessary. However, where there is no existing law there can be no STANDING, no right to claim a breach of law or injury requiring legal adjudication. Explain to us how a Court can hear a legal complaint, when there is no law for a case in law to be presented. Without a codified law, to breach/break, there is no offense ... no breach of law... to bring before the Courts.
You don't have a clue about what you are saying... you're not funny... you are DANGEROUS, and one of the reasons our nation is in such trouble. You won't listen to reason and apparently, you are not bright enough to ferret out the facts. The Courts may not LEGALLY or LAWFULLY go where there is no Law... the Court cannot create imaginary law or give standing (claims of a breach in the law) where no law exists. PERIOD.
You are getting funnier with each post. "Where no law exists the courts may not go..." That's one of the most hilarious things I have read in a long time. I guess the internet, for example, should have waited until Congress got around to writing laws for it. Haha. I can't stop laughing. But you probably think that's because I'm the twit. Haha.
Thanks for a good laugh on a Friday night. I need it. I had an intense week but I made good money. So, I'm good with that.
Now let's focus on what is really important. Keep Trump in the White House and get more tax cuts.
Where no law exists the courts may not go... PERIOD. They may not legislate or crate law where they CLAIM no law exist. However, in principle there is sufficient law of record to try any case except the most advanced areas of our scientific endeavor... and even then existing laws may apply. There can be NO STANDING before any court where there is no breech in law... and where there is no law there can be no breech of law or standing... you are such a twit.
That's a cute response. It makes me smile. - Let me repeat myself since you apparently didn't get the point the first time around. Case law applies existing laws to cases that aren't legalislated by statutatory laws because judges still need to adjucate cases even if there is no specific laws on the books. In such a situation they refer to other laws that can be applied to the case and make a judgement, thereby creating case law. If lawmakers are not happy with the judiciary applying other laws to a specific set of cases, they can pass a law for theses specific set of cases and overrule the application of case law.
If judges followed your idea and they got a case for which there were no specific laws on the books, they would reject the case because they could not apply or create case law and instead, they would tell the parties to petition Congress to pass a law for that case first. So, the case will not be adjucated until Congress passes a law. You see, my dear Col Ronald A. Nelson, this is obviously not a workable solution and quite a ridiculous idea, isn't it?
If, as you stated above: "Case Law does not create law... Then why do you suggest that Lawmakers can "step in anytime they wish to create law that could overrule case law." One doesn't need to OVERRULE 'Case Law', if it is not law. If 'case law' is not law, it then follows, that passing a statutory law would be unnecesasry to overrule case law ... as it doesn't exist.
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
of 13 Next