DOJ Inspector General opens investigation into use of subpoenas to investigate members of Congress

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Link to tweet

[Thunderbeast]

1. Good start....

Use regular order to investigate political corruption. When the facts come out, prosecute identified crimes.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

2. I'm happy for this, it's a start. But my confidence level WRT anyone getting actually punished

is quite low, I have to admit.

Setting my expectations low helps me avoid crushing disappointment.

[StarfishSaver]

5. "They need to DO SOMETHING!!! And they need to GIVE US THEIR PLAN!!!"

"OK. Here's what we're going to do."

"IT WON'T MATTER!!!"

And yet, setting your expectations low to avoid a crushing disappointment means that until the outcome is achieved, you're already mimicking crushing disappointment and if it turns out well, you've wasted all this meantime being miserable.

It is possible to be optimistic and expect the best while still being aware that it could turn out differently than you hope. But I refuse to live in darkness and dismay because something MIGHT not turn out as I wish it will.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

8. You sure are handy with the strawmen and reading words into my posts that aren't there SS

And I wasn't suggesting anyone else should approach these matters as I do.

You might do me the same courtesy

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Depends On How We Define Punish

I can easily envision this investigation turning up improprieties & violations of rules that led to this.
Those current DOJ employees caught up in this could lose their job. That is a punishment, I can realistically see happening.
But jail, no. Fines, no. Disbarment, no.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

11. Yep, I agree. Some people could lose their jobs if still around, that's about it

There could also be new rules banning this practice as well.

Some people getting fired (not Barr, however, obviously) and new rules don't get me all that excited in terms of 'accountability', however.

I'm not saying this outcome would be 'a failure', to be clear. Bottom-line, I don't think there are laws against what happened, ergo penalty possibilities are limited.

I said this same thing all along about the Mueller investigation, allow me to mention.

He would've had to find solid evidence that Trump's people in some way instigated/paid for/planned the break in of the DNC computers, and/or that Trump's people took actual physical possession (or maybe electronic possession, possibly) of the stolen materials. Nothing else being discussed was an actual crime, esp. given the DoJ's 'rules' about POTUS being above the law other than impeachment.

[UTUSN]

3. K&R

[UTUSN]

4. K&R

[MineralMan]

6. Looks like the DOJ has been busy, after all, eh?

Just as I thought.

***Tonight's Supper Menu***

Old Crow Old-Fashioned Cocktail
Minced Crow on Toast
Breast of Crow a la King
Candied Crow Wings

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. This makes me smile

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. Justice Department opens investigation into new Trump-era scandal

This is the right thing to do. This tweet is from Benen and so Rachel will covering this tonight

Link to tweet

Congressional Democrats have responded to the revelations with hair-on-fire reactions, demanding an investigation. Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz, the independent watchdog within Main Justice, announced a probe this afternoon in a press statement that read:

The DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is initiating a review of DOJ's use of subpoenas and other legal authorities to obtain communication records of Members of Congress and affiliated persons, and the news media in connection with recent investigations of alleged unauthorized disclosures of information to the media by government officials. The review will examine the Department's compliance with applicable DOJ policies and procedures, and whether any such uses, or the investigations, were based upon improper considerations. If circumstances warrant, the OIG will consider other issues that may arise during the review.

As for possible congressional scrutiny, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) issued a joint statement this morning, condemning the Trump-era DOJ for its "gross abuse of power and an assault on the separation of powers," adding, "Former Attorneys General Barr and Sessions and other officials who were involved must testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath. If they refuse, they are subject to being subpoenaed and compelled to testify under oath"

The trouble, of course, is that in an evenly divided Senate, the Judiciary Committee has equal numbers of Democratic and Republican members. In order for the panel to issue a subpoena, at least one GOP senator will have to agree.

The statement from Schumer and Durbin added, "This issue should not be partisan; under the Constitution, Congress is a co-equal branch of government and must be protected from an overreaching executive, and we expect that our Republican colleagues will join us in getting to the bottom of this serious matter."