you misunderstand. the charge she was given is not "criminal". she was still charged months before the presidential election process came to close.
what she did is not hidden. it's the fact that she's already been charged for it in a way that was "non-lethal" to her campaign.

Jordan and Meadows know they likely don't have the votes in the House to actually impeach Rosenstein. They definitely know they don't have the votes in the Senate. But their resolution isn't privileged so there might not even be a vote on the House floor.

The large part of me thinks this is the House GOP simply trying to undermine the Special Counsel and politicize Rosenstein and this investigation even further. It gives Trump more political wiggle room to fire Rosenstein.

However, Congress does have the Constitutional authority to exercise oversight into the Executive branch. If Rosenstein and the DOJ haven't properly responded to Congressional subpoenas, that's a legitimate gripe.

The motives behind that oversight can certainly be questioned, but Congress does have the right to subpoena the DoJ for documents.

So DoJ has to respond to congressional subpoenas but former White House officials don't have to (like Bannon)?

what date? google is only showing from early this year, in which he complied with a house subpoena for a closed hearing.

"Bannon had also refused to answer questions that were not pre-approved by the white house..." -Observer.com

So again, former white house officials can refuse to answer questions but FBI/DoJ members/officials can't?

if you watched even some of the hearings that i previously listed...
Wray/Rosenstein dodged a good number of questions.
Strzok denied most questions asked of him, at the discretion of the FBI.

if you aren't going to bother watching more than that 5min clip, you shouldn't post on it.
these 2 videos directly relate to why there is a push on Rosenstein. and clinton.. and obama... and strzok.... and ice?

i will also state that both hearings held in these videos, had prior private hearings as well. i believe both of them were the day before public hearings.

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Jul 25 2018 11:34pm

I think this move is mostly intended to show Mueller the limits of his mandate and rein him in. Impeaching Rosenstein would almost certainly lead to a new deputy AG who would cripple or outright end Mueller's probe.

By showing him that a sizeable portion of the House majority faction would be willing to go for this impeachment, he knows that his investigation hinges on just a dozen more moderate republican house members, so that he better not pisses those off by overplaying his hand or acting in a too one-sided, partisan way.

There is always the right to remain silent or invoke the Fifth Amendment.




Half-assing this probe won't help anyone it will undermine this presidency more than anything. It's better to let criminal investigators be thorough the find nothing.

Trump supporters really struggle with the idea of credibility.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 26 2018 05:47am

Congess is the FBI's check on breach of power. How can you excuse Rosenstein not complying with Congress?

So a building full of corrupt politicians is supposed to be a check on a institution with a hundred times its integrity?