Obamagate Meme Spying Wiretapping | Obama | TRUMP MEMES LIBRARY | Flickr

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:

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Email me when people reply –


    • "Please sight the Judicial Branch's authorization under the US Constitution to create Law." - There is none. Case law does not create law, it applies existing laws to cases that aren't legalized by statutatory laws. Lawmakers can step in anytime they wish to create law that could overrule case law.

    • Paul...

      Please sight the Judicial Branch's authorization under the US Constitution to create Law... What Constitutional authority do the Courts have to CREATE LAW? 

      The Founders were familiar with how the Judiciary can become corrupted... They understood ACTIVIST judicial review would lead to the corrupt administration of the law. They suffered such bad judicial conduct under King George. Therefore, they empowered JURIES to be the final arbiters of the law, not life-tenured Judges.

      The Judicial Branch has no authority to create law...  any kind of law. The Court's authority (jurisdiction) extends to administering the law as Congress intended in Article 3 of the US Constitution. 'Case law' subverts both Congress's legislative authority and Constitutional law. We must end rule by judicial fiat and 'case law'.  America must reinstate Juries as the final arbiters of the law. The Jury Nullification process must return as a check on bad law and a corrupt Judiciary.

    • No, case law is not a legal tradition, it is part of every single legal system designed by humans. Of course, case law cannot contradict the Constitution anymore than a statutatory law can. That's why some decisions go to the Supreme Court who decides the constitutionality of legal decisions or laws, which then becomes case law by the Supreme Court,

    • "Case law" is a legal tradition, not a "law" as such. And one might recall the many bad decisions that have been cited in support of even more bad decisions, (Dred Scott?) until that "case law precedent" was properly overturned. One should also note that no case law precedent that is contrary to the Constitution can be considered in any way to be good or "legal", by logical definition.

    • Bob, first of all, Ron has used plenty of case law in the past to make various points. So, it is a bit hypocritical to argue against it now. Second, even statutory law systems use case law when applying the law to a myrad of different circumstances that can't all be legislated. Since Romans established the first extensive legal codex, and even in centuries old canonical law that's still in force today, case law is part of jurisprudence. That's a fact for every single human legal system. But you guys go ahead and believe whatever you want. It's a free country. 

    • Paul, it is very clear you don't understand Ron's point.  Heis criticizing the use of case law rather than using the Constitution to make legal decisions  Ron is absolutely correct!!!!!.

    • You have no examples of hypocrisy, as I have not engaged in hypocrisy...  I hardly deem your inappropriate representation of my posts as hypocrisy.  We are not all good now... you don't slander someone and then smooth it over by claiming we are all good now... all don't include me.

    • Sorry but I won't spend the time to look at your old posts. I'm satisfied that you stopped invoking case law to make your point since we had a discussion about it. That makes me think you know you were doing it and you got called out for your hypocrisy. We are all good now as far as I'm concerned. 

    • Post examples of what you claim I have done.. as it escapes me as too what you are talking about... Loose words on paper don't make for facts.  Post links to examples or quote them in context to support your supposition.

    • I could have sworn you cite lots of precedent to support your opinion and you don't just rely on the letter of the law. My bad! - In any case, I am not going back to the discussion we had a while ago.

This reply was deleted.