Conservative Hero James Comer Totally Exposed FBI By Refusing To See Documents He Requested

[BackAgain]

it’s true but the issue is you’ll need a new executive branch to prosecute. It’s like when Holder became the first AG held in contempt for stonewalling the obama admin gun running scam, he wasn’t criminally prosecute because well…his doj wasn’t going to prosecute him

That’s one of the problems. But as I’ve noted, there is another option. Two other options, actually.

One is civil contempt. Put the fucker in jail until he complies.

The other is related. It’s one I doubt present day politicians would have the stones to do. But the Congress could resort to its own Constitutionally INHERENT powers. Congress could hold a legislative trial. If it was determined that the contemner (in this instance, that would be the Director of the FBI) was “guilty,” the Sergeant at Arms of the House could then be directed BY the House to arrest Wray and put him into the House jail.

But, again, the House wouldn’t have the stones.

 

[marvin martian]

Why do you folks keep dodging this??






Why doesn't Grassley care if the accusations are true or not? Why did he say "I don't know" when he had read the same documents they are asking for now?? Because they know morons like you love performance art..make-believe shit....because the facts and reality are seldom on your side....so yall keep playing dress up and fantasy games

LOL

Urban Dictionary: rupar

A lying sack of shit who deceives people for a living, in the name of his political ideology. Every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie

www.urbandictionary.com

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

LOL

Urban Dictionary: rupar

A lying sack of shit who deceives people for a living, in the name of his political ideology. Every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie

www.urbandictionary.com

I guess Rupar also forced Grassley to say what he said too huh?


The fact you keep deflecting lets me know you are full of shit.....



Did Tucker release all of that J6 footage yet or have yall decided to pretend that was never a thing and stuff...

 

[Marener]

We already knew this. It’s been crystal clear for many years.

Glad we can agree.

That’s not entirely true. There is a risk. It’s just a small one. And there remains another enforcement mechanism, anyway.

Splitting hairs even after you just admitted that they were in no danger of being prosecuted by the DoJ.

That’s generally the case. So what?

So you’re not really suing the individual. You’re suing someone operating in their official capacity which is the same as suing the administration.

Yeah. And?

Just continuing to show you that your belief as to what they should do isn’t what anyone actually does.

You overstate your case, as usual.

I’ve yet to see any instance of the administration suing congress to get out of a subpoena. Thst hasn’t happened in any instance brought up in your sources (which are good sources by the way)

 

[marvin martian]

I guess Rupar also forced Grassley to say what he said too huh?


The fact you keep deflecting lets me know you are full of shit.....



Did Tucker release all of that J6 footage yet or have yall decided to pretend that was never a thing and stuff...

Keep using Aaron Rupar as a source. It makes you look exactly as dumb as I know you are.

LOL

 

[BackAgain]

Glad we can agree.

Splitting hairs even after you just admitted that they were in no danger of being prosecuted by the DoJ.

So you’re not really suing the individual. You’re suing someone operating in their official capacity which is the same as suing the administration.

Just continuing to show you that your belief as to what they should do isn’t what anyone actually does.

I’ve yet to see any instance of the administration suing congress to get out of a subpoena. Thst hasn’t happened in any instance brought up in your sources (which are good sources by the way)

So even when shown your errors you still can’t be honest.

Lol.

Carry on, you dimwit.

 

[Marener]

So even when shown your errors you still can’t be honest.

Lol.

Carry on, you dimwit.

I’m looking for one example where the administration sued congress to get out of a subpoena, which you claim is what the law requires.

Just one example.

 

[BackAgain]

I’m looking for one example where the administration sued congress to get out of a subpoena, which you claim is what the law requires.

Just one example.

I can’t assist you in your imbecile inability to follow the conversation.

 

[Marener]

I can’t assist you in your imbecile inability to follow the conversation.

Seems weird that you declare something to be the “proper” legal course and yet can’t find a single instance of it occurring.

You even did a good job obliterating the reason for doing so. You say they should sue congress to avoid potential prosecution, yet you also admit the chances of such prosecution is nil.

Your logic is broken and your next responses are going to be vague, evasive and childish.

 

[easyt65]

James Comer Rejects FBI’s Offer To Show Him Documents He's Requesting In Biden Probe

The Oversight Committee chair doesn't just want to see the paperwork detailing a supposed bribery scheme — he wants to see it in his office. Why? Unclear.

www.huffpost.com

"House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) has refused an offer from the FBI to view documents he’s requesting as part of an investigation into President Joe Biden. On Wednesday, bureau Director Christopher Wray spoke by phone with Comer and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) about the paperwork — a form reflecting a tip to the FBI that allegedly implicates Biden in some kind of bribery scheme from his time as vice president. Afterward, Comer said in a statement that Wray “offered to allow us to see the documents in person at FBI headquarters,” but that seeing the material isn’t good enough — he wants to have the paperwork in his office.

Comer asked for the tip form earlier this month with a congressional subpoena. “Recording the information does not validate the information, establish its credibility, or weigh it against other information known or developed by the FBI,” wrote Christopher Dunham, the FBI’s acting assistant director for congressional affairs. If Republicans don’t receive the form, Comer said, they will move forward with a resolution to hold Wray in contempt of Congress. Republicans could file a lawsuit asking a court to enforce the subpoena - though the fact that the FBI has already shown a willingness to provide access to the material would likely hurt Republicans’ case in such a suit."


This was a brilliant and gutsy move by Rep. Comer....Raise hell about the FBI not allowing you to see documents, then when the FBI grants you access to those documents, raise hell about having to see those documents at a secured location instead of having them sent to you so you can make up what is in those documents. It is also a brilliant move to file contempt of Congress on Wray for not complying with a Congressional subpoena...anyone who refuses to comply with Congress' subpoena power needs to be locked and made an example of...as long as that Congress is GOP controlled of course.


But I do find it funny that Grassley basically comes out and admits that they are not concerned with finding out whether or not Biden actually committed a crime.....it's almost like he is admitting all of this is bullshit performance art just to entertain their ill-informed base.

FBI Director Wray was given a subpoens to turn over the dicument,which the Oversight Committee has every right to see.

While Wray continues to violate subpoenas he is trying to play 'Let's Make A Deal' while continuing to violate the Subpoenas.

Wray does not want the Committee to physically have tbe document in-hand so they can actually use it instead of hettibg into a 'my word versus your word' about what it actually says / proves.

This ploy is so f*ing lame ... and continuously criminal ... only dumbasses would be duped by it...

Dumbasses like you.

 

[BackAgain]

Seems weird that you declare something to be the “proper” legal course and yet can’t find a single instance of it occurring.

Seems odd that you pontificate on anything related to the law when you don’t understand anything about it. But hey. You do you.

You even did a good job obliterating the reason for doing so. You say they should sue congress to avoid potential prosecution, yet you also admit the chances of such prosecution is nil.

False again. Your IQ and level of honesty is smaller than your dick size. I didn’t speak about “suing” Congress. I spoke about getting a ruling from the Judicial branch.

It appears that there isn’t much on Earth that you are capable of comprehending or discussing with any honest or factual basis.

Your logic is broken and your next responses are going to be vague, evasive and childish.

False yet again. Disagreeing with your stupid assertions is none of the above. And my facts are straight and so is the logic I’ve used.

That you can’t grasp the obvious is a “you” problem.

If I wanted to spend gobs of time attempting to educate you, let’s get real. It would be pointless. You are what they used to refer to as “educable mentally retarded.”

 

[Marener]

Seems odd that you pontificate on anything related to the law when you don’t understand anything about it. But hey. You do you.

Nothing in here changes what I’ve said. You don’t have a single instance of any administration following what you have decided is the “proper” legal course. Lots of examples of the executive branch doing the exact opposite though.

False again. Your IQ and level of honesty is smaller than your dick size. I didn’t speak about “suing” Congress. I spoke about getting a ruling from the Judicial branch.

Splitting hairs. You’d have to sue the committee in order to get the ruling about the subpoena. Whatever you call it, it makes no difference. You’ve already destroyed your own argument. If you’re the executive branch, there’s no point getting a ruling from the court.

 

[BackAgain]

Nothing in here changes what I’ve said.

Nothing of what you’ve said makes the slightest difference. So, if we’re keeping count, you lost before you began.

The Director of the FBI is — above all else — supposed to be a “law enforcement” officer. As such, he should make it a point of complying with the law wherever he is called upon to do so.

And if he chooses to refuse (for quasi legitimate reasons or otherwise) then he should go to court to quash the Congressional subpoena. A little respect for a Federal Law from the fucking Director of the FBI would be nice.

But, of course, if he went to court and the judicial branch ruled against him, then he’d be in a pickle, anyway.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why do you folks keep dodging this??






Why doesn't Grassley care if the accusations are true or not? Why did he say "I don't know" when he had read the same documents they are asking for now?? Because they know morons like you love performance art..make-believe shit....because the facts and reality are seldom on your side....so yall keep playing dress up and fantasy games

It sounds like Grassley doesn't want to convict the SOPOTUS without seeing all the evidence.

But, he does want to see all the evidence.

Letting the DOJ/FBI handle the investigation without close oversight woudn't be an issue but for two things:

1) The DOJ/FBI/DNC is completely politicized and completely corrupted. Since it has become an arm of the Democratic Party, it is fair for the GOP to take an an adversarial position against it. Or more correctly, to recognize that the DOJ has taken an adversarial position towards the GOP.

2) Whatever crimes he may have committed, Hunter didn't dream them up himself. He is acting under orders either directly from his father, or from the staff of his father's criminal organization. Joe should be the target of investigation. The DOJ has said that it will not indict a sitting president. That doesn't mean that a corrupt sitting president must be allowed to ride out his term. The DOJ has a responsibility to turn over evidence to congress so they can make an informed decision about impeachment.

If they refuse to, that will be proof of 1).

 

[Marener]

Nothing of what you’ve said makes the slightest difference. So, if we’re keeping count, you lost before you began.

The Director of the FBI is — above all else — supposed to be a “law enforcement” officer. As such, he should make it a point of complying with the law wherever he is called upon to do so.

And if he chooses to refuse (for quasi legitimate reasons or otherwise) then he should go to court to quash the Congressional subpoena. A little respect for a Federal Law from the fucking Director of the FBI would be nice.

But, of course, if he went to court and the judicial branch ruled against him, then he’d be in a pickle, anyway.

The DoJ looked at it and determine it didn’t break the law.

Bummer.

 

[BackAgain]

The DoJ looked at it and determine it didn’t break the law.

Bummer.

Cite? What “it” are you allegedly referencing this time, you moron?

By the way, although you won’t be able to grasp the import of this point, did you not understand that “oversight” means that the Legislative branch isn’t obliged to simply accept the word of the Executive branch for anything?

 

[Marener]

Cite? What “it” are you allegedly referencing this time, you moron?

By the way, although you won’t be able to grasp the import of this point, did you not understand that “oversight” means that the Legislative branch isn’t obliged to simply accept the word of the Executive branch for anything?

No one has ever thought that Congress’s subpoena power is unlimited.

So maybe it hasn’t occurred to you that the executive branch isn’t obliged to simply accept that a Congressional subpoena must be complied with.

Since the DoJ won’t prosecute Wray, it means the DoJ doesn’t think the law was broken.

 

[BackAgain]

No one has ever thought that Congress’s subpoena power is unlimited.

So what? Also not a claim I made. Irrelevant.

So maybe it hasn’t occurred to you that the executive branch isn’t obliged to simply accept that a Congressional subpoena must be complied with.

No. And that isn’t what I said either. You suck even at your horrendously feeble efforts to prop up your straw man arguments. They don’t have to comply. They can challenge the subpoenas, legally.

I recognize that the last word ^ throws simpletons such as you.

Since the DoJ won’t prosecute Wray, it means the DoJ doesn’t think the law was broken.

They haven’t gotten the referral yet, you idiot. Although we know in advance that they won’t make an honest, legally valid determination, that doesn’t mean that they have already decided the matter.

And you persistently choose to ignore the alternative options even after I bothered to share them with you.

You really suck at this.

 

[lantern2814]

No no. You’re simply being a mindless drone again. Well, pretty much always.

Separation of powers exists for a variety of reasons. One of the big reasons is to keep the power of government properly reined in pursuant to our Constitutional design.

Here, the House has a right and duty to oversee the actions of our Executive Branch. That’s why, when they issue a subpoena, it has the force of law.

As I already noted, it is certainly possible that the Executive Branch might see the issued subpoena as an overreach. At that point, the proper legal response isn’t to ignore the subpoena or simply refuse to comply. The proper course is to contest it in court. (The Judicial Branch is especially designed to resolve such dispute.)

The bottom line, once again, is that you are absolutely totally full of shit.

They forget that they screeched that Trump HAD to comply with a Congressional Subpoena. Even when he legally went to court to challenge it. They’re refusing to comply and not even going to court over it. I’ve also heard theories that the FBI and DOJ are slow walking this hoping the statute of limitations runs out. Possible, but as shown with the endless prosecutions of Trump, those limits are meaningless now too.

 

[Marener]

So what? Also not a claim I made. Irrelevant.

It’s very relevant. Inappropriate subpoenas don’t have to be complied with and not complying with these subpoenas is not a crime.

No. And that isn’t what I said either. You suck even at your horrendously feeble efforts to prop up your straw man arguments. They don’t have to comply. They can challenge the subpoenas, legally.

I recognize that the last word ^ throws simpletons such as you.

Again, why would they challenge the subpoena? There’s absolutely no point and no requirement they do so.

They haven’t gotten the referral yet, you idiot. Although we know in advance that they won’t make an honest, legally valid determination, that doesn’t mean that they have already decided the matter.

The DoJ will make the same determination every other DoJ has made when it comes to this issue and it will not be prosecuting their own. Which, incidentally, the DoJ in house counsel was already undoubtedly involved in the decision to not comply with the subpoena.