More outrageous: DOJ investigating sitting members of Congress or leaked tax returns of the ultra wealthy?

Investigations are fine. Necessary at times. But to politicize the DOJ in the manner the previous administration did should outrage people from all sides. Especially when the initial investigations under Sessions showed no reason to continue them,

But the President’s personal Attorney General did his master’s bidding and kept at it.

“People familiar with the matter said there was no evidence connecting the House Intelligence Committee to the leaks, but the probe was revived when William Barr became attorney general and prosecutors doubled down on trying to figure out who leaked information about Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, and his contacts with then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.”

“The Times writes that the DOJ routinely investigates leaks, but it was “extraordinary” for the DOJ to subpoena “communications metadata from members of Congress — a nearly unheard-of move outside of corruptions investigations.” David Laufman, a former Justice Department official who worked on leak investigations, told the Times that Trump had “an unmistakeable vendetta against Congressman Schiff,” and this “raises serious questions about whether the manner in which this investigation was conducted was influenced by political considerations rather than purely legal ones.” 

I am sure the usual suspects will have something to say to poo-poo the entire episode. But remember the unsubstantiated accusations against 44 as well.

Banana republic stuff – IMO

22 thoughts on “More outrageous: DOJ investigating sitting members of Congress or leaked tax returns of the ultra wealthy?

      1. Hardly, You’re conflating two separate subjects.

        Do you think that even if the investigation of Schiff and others was wrong that would make violating the privacy of tax returns OK?


        1. The initial investigation found there was nothing there. Yet when Bill Barr became the consigliere, I mean AG, to 45, he reopened the investigations with no evidence with which to do so.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Sessions was not doing the investigation himself; DOJ lawyers were. The DOJ lawyers said there was NO EVIDENCE to follow up on and Sessions, rightly so, ended it.

            Jeff Sessions is no friend of mine. Neither is Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, or Mr. Raffensberger in GA. But when they do the right thing, they should not be smeared in the manner in which you and others here do.

            Attacking the messenger because you don’t like the truthful answers he or she delivers is VERY 45-ish. I am sure he would be proud of the fact that you drank his Kool-Aid and LIKED it so much you have forsaken any vestige of being honest.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The subpoenas were from a grand jury, which means the investigation had gone pretty far before being stalled.

            I guess you don’t see Congress subpoenaing classified material and then leaking it for partisan advantage as a serious matter, but I do, regardless of which side does it.


          3. “The subpoenas were from a grand jury, “…

            Cite? Because there is no mention of a grand jury in the piece. THe DOJ does not need a subpoena from a Grand Jury to be issued.

            I think your just blowing smoke to cover up the fact the 45th President of the United States used his Department of Justice and Attorney General to go after political opponents in a manner consistent with his hero, Vladimir Putin.


          4. “Sessions was too afraid of not getting invited to the right parties to do his job”

            And yet the renewed investigation by Barr a year later had the same result.

            There is very little about Jeff Sessions that I like or agree with but I give him full marks for doing his best to behave honorably in the face of pressure from the traitor in the White House. That you now slime him for that honorable behavior says quite a lot about you.

            Liked by 1 person

  1. Let’s first see what we can stipulate.

    Classified information(you do remember what that is, right?) subpoenaed by Schiff’s committee was unlawfully leaked to members of the press.

    Do we agree on that?

    In the course of investigating that crime, the DOJ subpoenaed the metadata of Schiff and his associates electronic communications to determine who had contact with those journalists.

    Do we agree on that?

    If so, how is that in any way an improper tool for investigating the crime of unlawful transfer of classified materials?

    In the course of getting a security clearance, do you not agree in advance to such scrutiny


    1. So what did the Trump administration DOJ find with regards to secretly investigating Congress members?

      Not that it matters, but the last administration was one of the “leakiest” in recent history. Which makes a reasonable person wonder if the president really did not care except if the leak showed his bad side, like a king’s wrath at the royal portraitist.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. There is no doubt there were lots of leaks, but they were not FROM the Trump administration, they were part of the entrenched bureaucracy’s campaign to undermine him.

        “The politicization of the federal bureaucracy is nothing new. Recall Anne Gorsuch, ejected from Washington in 1983 by a vengeful Environmental Protection Agency career staff furious that a woman nominated by an elected president and confirmed by an elected Senate would dare give it orders. For decades, the GOP has understood that the term “federal government employee” is increasingly interchangeable with “registered Democrat.”

        Yet this cadre of civil servants are increasingly unsatisfied with merely causing trouble for department or agency heads under GOP administrations. They have realized they can also use their powers in ways that aid the political goals of Democrats.”

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Yeah, sure, that was the reason.

            After all, Schiff is a known shady character who easily could have changed the metadata for his child’s phone long after it was already in the hands of the government.

            It is worth noting at this point that the initial investigation found no evidence that the Congress was the source of the leak and neither did the re-opened investigation a year later.

            I know you have a vivid imagination. Imagine your reaction and comments if AG Holder had been caught getting secret subpoenas on GOP members of Congress who had been critical of President Obama.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Your insults notwithstanding, what exactly was classified? The fact that members of the T**** inner circle were meeting secretly with Russians BEFORE he was in office and we don’t know what was REALLY being discussed (Adoptions or election collusion?).

      In the course of the INITIAL investigation, there was no evidence found to show illegal disclosure of classified information and the new investigation was started under the command of Bill Barr who did not operate as an independent AG, but as the personal attorney to the President.

      For a REAL independent AG, look at Garland’s track record over the past 5 months.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “I am sure the usual suspects will have something to say to poo-poo the entire episode. But remember the unsubstantiated accusations against 44 as well.”

    As predicted, Don came right out and started saying no big deal. But the outrage of Obama’s IRS investigating faux 503(c) groups , with no gag orders, was a big overreach and abuse of power.

    The hypocrites just keep coming out and proving themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s