Interesting background stuff. The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has scheduled their first committee hearing for Thursday, February 9th at noon [LINK]. There are no details on the agenda for the first meeting; however, there are indications of the seed and targeting process that is being used.
According to a press announcement today from House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, who is also the Chairman of the select subcommittee, the larger Judiciary Committee is currently taking transcribed testimony from FBI whistleblowers about the political targeting within the Dept of Justice.
Against that backdrop, it is possible -perhaps likely- the agenda for the select subcommittee will be tailored as an outcome of those whistleblower depositions. This would seem to make sense as the scope of the subcommittee needs to be narrowly tailored and focused on specific operations by government officials. Using the whistleblower testimony to frame the investigation of the subcommittee makes sense, in that the testimony creates the basis for the investigation to follow. First, here’s Jordan today:
The FBI whistleblower depositions will likely form the first material for the Select Subcommittee to discuss. This structure provides a two-prong approach toward sunlight on the larger issues at stake.
The main House Judiciary Committee has constitutional oversight over the DOJ and by consequence the FBI. The detailed discoveries are then passed down to the select subcommittee for further investigation. Hopefully, everyone can see the benefit to that approach. Judiciary holds bigger issues, then hands-off the smaller, perhaps deeper individual cases to the subcommittee for follow-up.
The newly formed House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has to narrow the focus and make a decision on which of the myriad of examples will best highlight the weaponization issue for the American people.
The U.S. government weaponization of the FBI is clear from the influence operations in elections, to the hiding of the Hunter Biden laptop, to the targeting of parents at school board meetings, to the entirety of what is evident in the Twitter files, domestic social media operations and even the FBI activity in the J6 events.
The FBI issues are widespread and clearly visible. However, only those who have followed the weaponization of the FBI realize the scale. To the larger U.S. electorate, the FBI targeting remains unknown because the mainstream media has buried it.
Should the FBI weaponization be the primary target of sunlight? The likely answer is yes.
In line what that approach, making first use of the FBI whistleblower testimony makes sense.
Additionally, the Democrats have now announced their NINE members for the House Select Subcommittee. They include: Ranking Member, Stacey Plaskett (VI at large); Stephen Lynch (MA 08), Linda Sanchez (CA 38), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL 25), Gerry Connolly (VA 11), John Garamendi (CA 08), Colin Allred (TX 32), Sylvia Garcia (TX 29) and… wait for it…. DOJ/Lawfare/Impeachment operative Dan Goldman (NY 10).
The 12 Republican members previously announced: Darrell ISSA (CA), Thomas Massie (KY), Chris Stewart (UT), Elise Stefanik (NY), Mike Johnson (LA), Chip Roy (TX), Kelly Armstrong (ND), Greg Steube (FL), Dan Bishop (NC), Kat Cammack (FL) and Harriet Hageman (WY).
First time I’ve noticed DWS in the news in a while.
What does she know about Seth Rich?
And when did she know it?
Perhaps an inquiry into HER laptop and the Awan (sp?) brothers would be another good story to clear-up/investigate.
Yes… the Dim’s actually had the audacity to include dws??? Will they subpoena his/her/its brother to testify about the Seth Rich Investgation???
And again, we see where the Republicans play the “Nice Guy” role and allow the DemocRATS 9 seats there with one of them being a former DOJ/Lawfare operative. WHERE was this treatment afforded by the DemocRATS on the J6 Committee? WHY do we ALWAYS have to be the limp wrist wimps in EVERYTHING we go about as a Party? IT IS TIME to play HARDBALL against those scum. I am SO TIRED of this same scenario played Over and Over again with our Party.
Weren’t you one of those Pentagon chaps who advised against shooting down the ballloon because it was too dangerous?
No matter what’s uncovered, no one will be arrested. AG Merrick Garland isn’t going to arrest his friends, even if evidence of murder is discovered.
Hell, Trump’s own AG Barr wouldn’t arrest the Obama gang even after a House Committee handed him 8 criminal referrals (basically evidence on a silver platter). Trump should’ve ordered the arrests himself, but no one agrees with me, even here.
Herein lies the problem. Only the Executive Branch can prosecute, and the Deep State will never arrest itself. Why is this problem never discussed among the Right? We keep pretending that the law will just be magically enforced by some objective entity.
An unenforced law isn’t a law at all.
this scenario actually happened against all the odds wrt to clinton – ken starr SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
It is worth the time to examine the legal means that CONGRESS, specifically the HOUSE, formed ITS OWN INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE, THE CHARGE< THEN PROSECUTE A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES>
Now, yes, there were some flaws in THAT KEN STARR SC …but NONE OF THEM WERE UNLAWFUL FLAWS> Congress was “unhappy” in hindsight because the SC became a political weaponized organ. Everyone that is honest, accepts this. Is it really a crime to have sex with consent with a staff aide? Yes, there was LYING to the American People. But wrt to that charge Ken Starr never did seek to prosecute clinton for lying. He could have, but as we are aware it would have been constitutionally challenged as POTUS has almost immunity-like king-like protections, for better or for worse. As a consequence, Congress has never attempted to form a INDEPENDENT COUNSEL after Kenn Starr. But here is what is important: There is nothing in the law THAT FORBIDS IT. It remains a lawful tool IF CONGRESS SO CHOOSES. And I believe this investigation is best served by THE HOUSE FORMING A INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.
But let’s be clear: setting aside a possible criminal case against OBAMA. (there is more than enough evidence that ties his directly to unlawful surveillance), we are talking about UNELECTED PUBLIC SERVANTS. DOJ, FBI, DOD, CIA, HOMELAND, STATE DEPARTMENT types. These are the most obvious criminals who conducted specific violations of federal law. So this is where it is very much different than the kenn starr IND COUNSEL formation.
bringing it all back home: INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR! This is how the HOUSE sidesteps the DOJ completely. It may even argue legally for a venue OUTSIDE THE DC COURTS, which will be just as conflicted given most of these judges also have prior legal actions wrt to the arc of violations and the names of specific persons who committed them.
If the HOUSE cannot form a INDEPENDENT COUNSEL…then we can expect to see zero accountability and true legal sunlight.
Congress will need to get creative..and take some risks. This is the ONLY way that justice will be served.
the question: Are House republicans all in order and represent a majority that WILL form a INDEPENDENT COUNSEL? That is really what this boils down to. If we draw from the 15 times it took members to get compromises past to confirm mccarthy is probably a good way to estimate how formation of a INDEPENDENT COUNSEL will go too.
then we will find out (as we did with the mccarthy fiasco) just who these members are and what they are willing to put on the line to investigate the most dangerous political crimes in all of US History.
God Bless America
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. However, Ken Starr was an independent counsel hired by House Republicans to uncover impeachable offenses. He wasn’t a criminal prosecutor, nor could be. Only the Executive Branch can press criminal charges.
Which takes us back to my original point. These criminals will never arrest themselves, starting with Biden and Garland.
Trump could’ve ordered the arrests while he was still POTUS. It was the only way we’d get justice. I’ve been saying for last 3 years, but no one on our side agreed, including on this board.
I’d like to hear someone give one valid reason why Trump should not have ordered the arrests.
So far all I’ve heard it “It wouldn’t look right,” and “the president isn’t a dictator.” All wrong. President is Chief LEO of the Land, not the AG. The AG position isn’t even in the Constitution and was originally created as the president’s legal counsel.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. However, Ken Starr was an independent counsel hired by House Republicans to uncover impeachable offenses. He wasn’t a criminal prosecutor, nor he could be. Only the Executive Branch can press criminal charges.
Which takes us back to my original point. These criminals will never arrest themselves, starting with Biden and Garland.
Trump could’ve ordered the arrests while he was still POTUS. It was the only way we’d get justice. I’ve been saying it for the last 3 years, but no one on our side agreed, including on this board.
I’d like to hear someone give one valid reason why Trump should not have ordered the arrests of the Obama gang.
So far all I’ve heard it “It wouldn’t look right,” and “the president isn’t a dictator.” All wrong. President is Chief LEO of the Land, not the AG. The AG position isn’t even in the Constitution and was originally created as the president’s legal counsel.
thank you….thank you
God Bless America
I wonder how long has to elapse before these idiots can run free without consequence. Somehow I doubt there is a time limit on treason and sedition.
Connelly is the winner of the Order of Lenin.