Reddit post apparently related to Clintons email coverup

originally posted by: Indigo5
When you can explain to me

(A) Separation of powers
(B) The nature of the privacy act and security classifications
(C) Why the Republican Devin Nunes refuses to sign off on Chaffetz having access to classified material?

Chaffetz has asked House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes for access to the classified records, but no vote on that request has been taken or scheduled.

Could it be because he has repeatedly leaked classified material for political purposes?

NO...He does not get to "see everything"....If so...then the FBI can "see everything" about Chaffetz and start demanding records.

Legislative Subpoenas

A. Legislatures have broad, but not unlimited, powers of investigation

The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process.
That power is broad.
It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.
It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them.
It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.

But, broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited.

There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. …
Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. …
No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.

www.ncsl.org...

Berating the FBI "I get to see everything!!"??

No he doesn't...Joe McCarthy is dead..

Chaffetz needs to make a legitimate case and ASK...He does not have a blanket right to others Personal Information, who have neither been accused or charged of a crime... without significant reason or cause..and he needs the head of the house intelligence committee to sign off of whatever might be classified...Nunes..And the Director of the FBI to OFFER to share material...Chaffetz is not god with rights to private citizens personal information???

I am glad he issued the Subpoena...I think the outcome will be educational in a legal and constitutional sense.

Curious...If the FBI chooses not to comply, who does Chaffetz send over to "arrest" the FBI??

Ponder that a while.

I suggest you read (PDF) Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: A Sketch and (PDF) Understanding Your Rights in Response to a Congressional Subpoena to understand your points, A and B, are nearly non-existent set by a long history of precedent and SCOTUS opinions ... especially concerning fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption of other government entities/individuals. The documents will also answer the procedure and options open if the FBI (Comey) does not comply.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Pagliano was personally served by U.S. Marshals to appear today and still did not appear before the committee; although his 6 lawyers did apparently respond.

I am wondering when the contempt charges will be brought.

And this Cummins clown is doing his spin job.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Cummins said Pagliano's immunity is limited.

In what way? Is Combetta's immunity limited, too?

I'm a few minutes behind on this hearing/meeting stream.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'll find the link to Pagliano's immunity (I posted about it somewhere around here) in a bit.

For the time being, I think it interesting to note that nearly twice as many people are watching this hearing than watched Hillary's rally yesterday:

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yep, and Reddit has been ordered and served to preserve all
posts and records, this is not going to be over before the election.

Combetta/StoneTear testifies tomorrow.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

What it sounds like is he was searching for a way to set someone else up to take a fall. After finding out he wasn't able to change the email address I guess this is when the decision was made to delete swaths of emails.

Hillary most likely told him to this and this is him trying to find out how to do what she told him to do. The fact he had immunity and still refused to testify should tell us everything we need to know.

I am disgusted that Democrats on this committee are doing all they can to deflect by using Hillary's campaign, while saying it's the Republicans that are motivated by the election. So glad this issue was raised. Shame on them.

What the heII about those of us that are not Democrats or Republicans? We always get so screwed by these two parties.

Also, I repeat -- and I know I am getting ahead of what this meeting is about:

"Conviction under 18 U.S.C. 371 for conspiracy to commit a substantive offense requires proof that one of the conspirators committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."

If it turns out that Combetta committed an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to tamper with evidence and obstruct justice -- BY MERELY POSTING THAT QUESTION ON REDDIT -- then dammit, I want this oversight committee to get to the bottom of it.

If 'Stonetear' is Combetta, that post is proof that he knew it was illegal to tamper with evidence, and his deletion of the post is evidence of consciousness of guilt.

This committee should not be allowed to mention party to shirk their duty and they have no business serving on a committee that they do not take seriously.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I am disgusted that Democrats on this committee are doing all they can to deflect by using Hillary's campaign, while saying it's the Republicans that are motivated by the election. So glad this issue was raised. Shame on them.

What the heII about those of us that are not Democrats or Republicans? We always get so screwed by these two parties.

Also, I repeat -- and I know I am getting ahead of what this meeting is about:

"Conviction under 18 U.S.C. 371 for conspiracy to commit a substantive offense requires proof that one of the conspirators committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."

If it turns out that Combetta committed an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to tamper with evidence and obstruct justice -- BY MERELY POSTING THAT QUESTION ON REDDIT -- then dammit, I want this oversight committee to get to the bottom of it.

If 'Stonetear' is Combetta, that post is proof that he knew it was illegal to tamper with evidence, and his deletion of the post is evidence of consciousness of guilt.

This committee should not be allowed to mention party to shirk their duty and they have no business serving on a committee that they do not take seriously.

19-15 vote (along Party lines) to hold Pagliano in Contempt.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Combetta/StoneTear testifies tomorrow.

Is that true? I thought they were ordered to respond to the request by tomorrow, and then a date would be set in the future.

I could be wrong and I hope that you are right.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think Combetta is scheduled for tomorrow's meeting.

However, Pagliano was held in contempt of Congress for not responding to a subpoena other than through his lawyers. The point was made the subpoenas are not optional, no matter what the person being issued such subpoena might wish to express or not express at the proceeding to which the subpoena pertained.

All of the democrats who voted no to the motion to hold Pagliano in contempt are, in effect, saying that if a person so wishes they can ignore a legal summons and not face any consequences.

Let this fact sink in for a moment.

Pagliano was personally served by U.S. Marshals and has since ignored said summons. The democrat members of the committee all voted to ignore Pagliano's thumbing his nose at the legal summons. They are now on record as supporting the destruction of our legal process.

Just a note here...

Congress does in fact have access to the un-redacted full investigation notes..

The documents from the FBI's file are being stored in a secure unit known by U.S. intelligence officials as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF.

Access to the SCIF is restricted to the members of the Oversight, Judiciary and Intelligence committees and their staffs.

abcnews.go.com...

Those are all committees headed by republicans...but obviously they don't feel Chaffetz is trustworthy enough to share that material with.

Thus this sidenote:

"These documents are not being withheld from the chairman because of anything these witnesses have done. They are being withheld by the Republican chairman of the intelligence committee," Maloney said.

the obstacle to Chaffetz seeing classified records related to the probe is not the FBI but with the House Intelligence Committee not releasing that information to the oversight panel chairman.

Maloney noted that Chaffetz has asked House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R) for access to the classified records, but no vote on that request has been taken or scheduled.

www.politico.com...

ALL of that on top of the "emergency" hearing Chaffetz staged was supposed to be closed session, but chaffetz said the closed session room hadn't been sweeped in time, thus the public, televised hearing where the CIA, NSA, FBI could not answer the questions he asked in a public forum.

Chaffetz put on a show with BS...

His own party is withholding the FBI notes from him because they know he will leak them for political purposes.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Combetta/StoneTear testifies tomorrow.

Is that true? I thought they were ordered to respond to the request by tomorrow, and then a date would be set in the future.

I could be wrong and I hope that you are right.

It's been mentioned on the Combetta Twitter feed multiple times in the past 10 minutes.
Haven't seen a source other than the Oversight letter.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think Combetta is scheduled for tomorrow's meeting.

However, Pagliano was held in contempt of Congress for not responding to a subpoena other than through his lawyers. The point was made the subpoenas are not optional, no matter what the person being issued such subpoena might wish to express or not express at the proceeding to which the subpoena pertained.

All of the democrats who voted no to the motion to hold Pagliano in contempt are, in effect, saying that if a person so wishes they can ignore a legal summons and not face any consequences.

Let this fact sink in for a moment.

Pagliano was personally served by U.S. Marshals and has since ignored said summons. The democrat members of the committee all voted to ignore Pagliano's thumbing his nose at the legal summons. They are now on record as supporting the destruction of our legal process.

Holy crap...No...Their vote regarding the validity of a summons is Precisely the legal process..

Again..you seem to be cheering for the McCarthy era...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I am disgusted that Democrats on this committee are doing all they can to deflect by using Hillary's campaign, while saying it's the Republicans that are motivated by the election. So glad this issue was raised. Shame on them.

What the heII about those of us that are not Democrats or Republicans? We always get so screwed by these two parties.

Cummings has been in Hillarys pocket from the beginning.
He does everything he can to disrupt these hearings.

And...he is not the only democrat that has...
Thoroughly disgusting that these people waste and squander
tax payer dollars on obstruction of justice.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Pagliano was personally served by U.S. Marshals and has since ignored said summons. The democrat members of the committee all voted to ignore Pagliano's thumbing his nose at the legal summons. They are now on record as supporting the destruction of our legal process.

Oh, but geez...dontcha know that embarrassed Pagliano at his job to be served by U.S. Marshalls? That part of the wailing by these committee members was pathetic.

Nevermind, that his attorneys were ASKED six times to acknowledge the service of process and didn't so the committee had to resort to U.S. Marshalls personally serving him.

a reply to: Indigo5

They only released a portion of the FBI investigation files...

From your own link:

The FBI provided portions of the Clinton probe file to Congress last month and warned lawmakers that the documents "contain classified and other sensitive material" and are not to be made public. Republicans have said the documents "did not constitute a complete investigative file," as many of the records had been substantially blacked out or were missing altogether.

Chaffetz wants the complete file, unredacted, to include all 302's from those who the FBI interviewed..

a reply to: burntheships

Well, they are acting as if this is all timed because the election is so close...not because the FBI just concluded their investigation in July...

Nope that can't be the reason...must be the election and a partisan witchhunt.

originally posted by: Indigo5
Just a note here...

Congress does in fact have access to the un-redacted full investigation notes..

The documents from the FBI's file are being stored in a secure unit known by U.S. intelligence officials as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF.

Access to the SCIF is restricted to the members of the Oversight, Judiciary and Intelligence committees and their staffs.

abcnews.go.com...

Those are all committees headed by republicans...but obviously they don't feel Chaffetz is trustworthy enough to share that material with.

First, Chaffetz is the Chair of the House Oversight committee, so how would the committee he is a chair of not feel he is allowed to see the info. That makes no sense.

In addition, your source admits this committee has only been given a protion of the files, and also quotes Chaffetz as slamming the FBI for not allowing them to see these files. The sectioned you quoted merely states that the files are being stored in a location that certain groups has access to, and yet one of those groups, the oversight committee has not ben given full access to those materials.

You only quoted a small bit of the source, here is what surrounds it.

The FBI provided portions of the Clinton probe file to Congress last month and warned lawmakers that the documents "contain classified and other sensitive material" and are not to be made public. Republicans have said the documents "did not constitute a complete investigative file," as many of the records had been substantially blacked out or were missing altogether.

The email issue has shadowed Clinton's candidacy, and Republicans have been steadfast in focusing on her use of a private server for government business, with several high-profile hearings leading up to the election.

The documents from the FBI's file are being stored in a secure unit known by U.S. intelligence officials as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF. Access to the SCIF is restricted to the members of the Oversight, Judiciary and Intelligence committees and their staffs.

"It's unclear to me how the FBI can prevent a member of Congress from seeing what we're already allowed to see by law, yet here they have done so," Chaffetz said.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Combetta/StoneTear testifies tomorrow.

Is that true? I thought they were ordered to respond to the request by tomorrow, and then a date would be set in the future.

I could be wrong and I hope that you are right.

From my understanding the letter sent by Rep Smith Chairman of Science, Space & Technology Committee to PRN was they had to give them a schedule for their interview requests by Fri 23rd Sep, or the committee would consider issuing subpoenas..

Haven't heard anything about Combetta before the Oversight Committee tomorrow...