ADMIN

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:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/516665-gop-votes-to-authorize-subpoenas-depositions-in-obama-era-probe

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

Join Tea Party Command Center

Email me when people reply –

Replies

    • By logic, if the courts are not allowed to make law, and Congress is established to make law, and the Executive is to execute the law, then mere logic notes that the courts are the least of the 3. The courts cannot do what the other two branches can do.

      And, also because Hamilton said so.

      Hamilton
       
      In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton said that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ... It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Federalist No. 78.
      And ONLY the case before them. To think otherwise is to wrongly believe they have the power to write law. They do NOT. 
      founders wrote judiciary is the least of the 3 - Google Search
    • My post was about your saying the three branches are equal. That is the assumption, not the truth. Most do believe they are equal but that is not what the founders intended. 

    • I never said that the SCOTUS, or any other court, has the power to make law. Quite to the contrary, I am vehemently opposed to them doing exactly that, as we have seen time and time again in recent decades with their uber liberal rulings and demands on the constitutionally proper lawmakers in Congress and State legislatures.

    • The power of the courts lies in the proper use of JURY NULLIFICATION as the final arbiters of the law... not judges.  Our constitution guarantees every citizen a trial by jury... both in civil and criminal cases.  The reason for the guarantee was to provide a check on unjust Judges and the proliferation of confusing laws that stand in conflict with the Constitution and JUSTICE.   

      Jury's were to administer justice with the HELP of the Judiciary and legal profession... they were not supposed to be relegated to mere pawns of the court... too, be silenced, removed from court proceedings at the judge's orders, or to have evidenced and testimony the jury deems necessary to be suppressed by lawyers and judges.  At one time Jurors could ask questions of witnesses and were permitted to take notes and discuss the case with other jurors as it unfolded.

      Our legal system has been completely corrupted by judicial edict (not law) rules and a legal profession that desires to rule and reign as Monarchs and Royalty... dictating what the law and Constitution state... .ordering Presidents, Congress, and government agencies around as agents of their ideology... this must end. 

      No more rule by Judicial fiat.

    • HEY! You are stealing my thunder. THANK YOU!

    • Gentlemen, gentlemen,........ please refrain from ad hominem attacks that contribute nothing to the discussion. That is a favorite tactic of the Democrat left when they run out of cogent and persuasive argument. And the basis of all of our laws can be found in the very simple principles and prescriptions that an ancient Hebrew brought down from a mountain top and that the Founders used to construct our constitutional republican form of government. The more simple that we can keep the application of those principles, the better off we will all be.

    • You really have a reading comprehension problem... It certainly is possible for one to consider both the Letter and the Spirit of the Law... without creating new law. The letter is the hard interpretation of the law, less the underlying spirit of the law... The letter of the law must be tempered with the Spirit of the law if justice is to be rendered... 

      It is a waste of time dealing with you on this subject... we will have to agree to disagree.

    • You have me cracking up with your dazzling intelligence. Now you are saying that "Juries must consider both the Letter (criminal code) and the Spirit (intent) of the law." That is very funny in the context of this conversation. Considering the spirit/intent of the law? That leaves things open for interpretation, which in turn creates case law, doesn't it? But I am too dumb in your eyes. I must have missed something very important again, because this doesn't create case law, gd dmn it.

    • Volumes of law make up our legal code... these laws are published in books and on electronic storage devices. They define what constitutes a crime... not the court. There is no standing before a court of law without first having a breach of law or complaint of a breach in law. Cases in Law are brought to the court and when there is no law to cover the alleged offense or injury it is dismissed, as having no standing in law. Simple enough... Get a refund from the law school you attended.

      On a different matter:

      FYI I support private initiative that properly rewards free enterprise... I don't support WINDFALL PROFITS made on the backs of US Labor and the common man... profits that were not generated by providing better goods and service(value added to the market) are not legitimate capital gains. 

      If one ADDS NO VALUE to the market... instead, they ship jobs to China to leverage slave wages, taxes, and overhead reaping massive windfall profits from the exploitation of market disparities... those profits, need to be TERRIFIED and taxed out of existence.

      I am for Godly Capitalism... where an equal measure and just scale provide all parties involved in the commercial exchange with an equitable outcome... I am not for managed markets where privilege and position are leveraged to make huge profits, without adding any value to the market... Profits taken without adding real value to the market have destroyed our manufacturing base and hamstrung the middle class... These feudal markets have lead to the stagnation of wages and ultimately the destruction of the American Dream. 

      High taxes, excessive regulation, and government mandates don't make for a level playing field... however, neither do slave wages, abusive labor, and environmental policy. Neither system of commercial exchange is fair or equitable. Greed and avarice are at the root of each.

    • Until conduct is codified by Legislation as CRIMINAL... there can be no crime. Too, break the Law there must first be a Law.  Criminal conduct must be defined by law and those laws must come from the Legislature or Congress, not the Courts... or their dicta. One can not be charged with a crime unless there is a law establishing specific conduct as criminal... before the crime occurred.  Expost Facto Laws are unconstitutional.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

      No one said that the Criminal Code must be so definitive that one can not be prosecuted without first meeting the standards of conduct to be a crime.  The application of the law must be tempered by appropriate administration and the use of JURIES (Grand and Pettit)... It is the Jury system that must decide if the law was violated (broken).

      Juries can temper the application of the law to address unusual circumstances and variances in the letter of the law. Juries must consider both the Letter (criminal code) and the Spirit (intent) of the law... when indicting and determining guilt in a trial.

      You remain ... reading challenged...

      Ex post facto law
      An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or…
This reply was deleted.