{"id":2006819,"date":"2023-08-21T11:32:02","date_gmt":"2023-08-21T15:32:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/no-appointing-a-special-counsel-is-not-a-license-for-doj-to-obstruct-congress\/"},"modified":"2023-08-21T11:40:55","modified_gmt":"2023-08-21T15:40:55","slug":"no-appointing-a-special-counsel-is-not-a-license-for-doj-to-obstruct-congress","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/no-appointing-a-special-counsel-is-not-a-license-for-doj-to-obstruct-congress\/","title":{"rendered":"No, &#8216;Special Counsel&#8217; doesn&#8217;t allow DOJ to obstruct Congress."},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">18<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fno-appointing-a-special-counsel-is-not-a-license-for-doj-to-obstruct-congress%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2006819&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div class=\"article-content\">\n<p>The\u2062 need\u200b for more public scrutiny of the Justice Department\u2019s improper handling of the Hunter Biden case was already\u200d high following whistleblower \u200drevelations, the collapse of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/ghislaine-maxwell-now-accusing-prison-guard-of-abuse\/\" title=\"Ghislaine Maxwell Now Accusing Prison Guard Of Abuse\">sweetheart plea deal<\/a>, and Attorney General Merrick\u2063 Garland\u2019s appointment of Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss as \u201cspecial \u2063counsel.\u201d Now, the Biden legal team has apparently \u200dreleased \u2064a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2023\/08\/19\/hunter-biden-plea-deal-collapse-00111974\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">trove of its emails<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2023\/08\/19\/us\/politics\/inside-hunter-biden-plea-deal.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">with prosecutors<\/a> to friendly press. These new revelations about Justice Department collusion with Biden\u2064 family lawyers make\u2063 it\u200b clear <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2023\/08\/21\/regime-media-launder-dirty-details-of-hunter-bidens-plea-deal-and-his-dads-filthy-doj\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">the \u2064two sides acted essentially as allies<\/a> \u2064 to kill the case, and it almost worked.<\/p>\n<p>It is now more important than ever that Congress\u200c get serious about obtaining answers from\u200b the DOJ. Our client, IRS supervisor Gary Shapley, and\u2063 IRS case agent\u200c Joe Ziegler both blew the whistle to Congress regarding five years\u2019 worth of political favoritism, pulling punches, and \u2062conflicts of interest in the Biden case on Weiss\u2019s watch. Since then, they\u2019ve been threatened, retaliated against, and removed from the case.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2-long d-flex justify-content-center\" style=\"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center; \" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-64376802\">\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-1379703300879-0\" class=\"mb-30\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-2066d7879f303fd75581cdce19a83888 fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-2066d7879f303fd75581cdce19a83888\"><\/div>\n<p>On March 1, 2023, Garland <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=0iz4uCFEXyo&#038;t=201s\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">swore to \u2062Congress\u2062 that the buck stopped with Weiss alone in the\u2063 Hunter Biden case<\/a>. But the\u2063 Justice Department\u2019s \u2062actions directly undercut his claims.\u2062 Just weeks later, DOJ headquarters officials <a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2023\/08\/19\/hunter-biden-plea-deal-collapse-00111974\">granted an audience\u200c for Biden lawyers to appeal\u2062 above Weiss\u2019s head<\/a>, and soon an unprecedented generous plea \u2064deal\u200c with the president\u2019s son\u2064 was offered as the whistleblowers \u200cwere\u2064 removed \u2063from the \u200ccase. Only after that \u2063plea agreement fell apart in open court on July\u2063 26 did Garland finally give Weiss the \u201cspecial\u201d authority they both claimed this\u200d year he did not \u2064need.<\/p>\n<p>U.S.\u2063 Attorney Weiss was obviously the wrong\u200c choice for special counsel\u200b because IRS whistleblowers had already credibly alleged that <em>his own office <\/em>and <em>he himself <\/em>had given Biden preferential treatment and provided misleading information to Congress. With his appointment as special\u2063 counsel, many across the political spectrum (including perhaps Garland) seemed to think that move somehow\u200d insulated \u200cthe Justice Department from congressional questioning \u200cabout the growing controversy. But it shouldn\u2019t. <\/p>\n<p>Nothing in \u200bthe Constitution grants prosecutors <em>or <\/em>\u201cspecial\u201d or\u2063 \u201cindependent\u201d counsels\u2063 immunity from congressional oversight \u2014 especially in this unprecedented situation where \u2062the special counsel himself is alleged to have committed \u200cwrongdoing. No matter how many insiders in the modern D.C. establishment assume otherwise, that does not make it true. Prosecutors wield immense power, and \u200dthere must be a check against the abuse and selective use of\u2063 that power.<\/p>\n<p>Just because Congress chooses to defer to the\u2062 Justice \u200cDepartment\u2019s \u201congoing criminal inquiry\u201d \u200dexcuse\u200c on some oversight inquiries\u200c does not mean it always must, or that the objection is based \u200don any\u2062 constitutional limit to the \u200ccongressional power\u200c to investigate. Congress has frequently made the \u200dopposite judgment and successfully obtained information about \u2064ongoing criminal cases when \u200bneeded for its oversight function.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-ce397bcda343c43cb90f5ab492604ea6 fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-6\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-ce397bcda343c43cb90f5ab492604ea6\"><\/div>\n<p>In our previous combined \u200d30-year careers on Capitol Hill, we personally \u2062led congressional probes related to ongoing law enforcement\u200d matters, including the \u200cAnthrax attacks, Operation Fast and Furious, Secret\u2062 Service scandals, the Clinton email server, the Parkland school shooting, the Trump-Russia allegations, and many more. We have conducted transcribed interviews\u2062 of officials from line attorneys \u200cand line agents up \u2063to \u200bthe deputy attorney general. We obtained sensitive law enforcement information about ongoing matters \u200cin official\u2063 briefings from senior officials, including the then-FBI director, as well as lawfully \u200bfrom executive branch whistleblowers without the knowledge or consent of their agency management.<\/p>\n<p>And that\u2019s just our personal experience. There\u2019s also a long, well-documented history of\u200c extensive <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/d-c-mayor-congress-must-open-a-probe-into-security-failures-at-u-s-capitol\/\" title=\"D.C. Mayor: Congress must open a probe into security failures at U.S. Capitol\">federal law enforcement<\/a> oversight by \u200bCongress, even in ongoing cases. So it is simply uninformed and untrue to claim that constitutional oversight \u200binterest must\u2062 yield \u2062to \u200bongoing criminal\u200b matters. The truth is quite the opposite\u200c \u2014 especially when government misconduct is involved.<\/p>\n<p>The Justice Department doesn\u2019t even believe \u2064its own rhetoric on the\u2063 sanctity of information about ongoing \u200bcriminal cases. Its senior officials routinely\u2064 leak information about ongoing cases to friendly \u200cmedia outlets with no consequence whenever it suits them \u2014 as they no\u200d doubt\u200c have done in this \u2063case. The same officials simultaneously and hypocritically claim they must stiff-arm legitimate congressional oversight to \u2064preserve the \u201cintegrity\u201d of\u2062 pending criminal matters. In reality, more forceful congressional oversight is\u2063 exactly what\u2019s needed to restore public faith in the integrity of how the DOJ handles high-profile criminal cases. <\/p>\n<p>The appointment of Weiss and the controversies \u2062that\u200d led to it\u200c raise serious questions about Justice Department misconduct, and those questions need not be sidelined\u200b indefinitely \u200din deference to the very \u200dprocess in need of scrutiny right now. <\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-cf7eb93625e3401d679e0283278da63e fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-10\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-cf7eb93625e3401d679e0283278da63e\"><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">An Inadequate Regulatory Solution<\/h2>\n<p>The current \u2062\u201cspecial counsel\u201d designation is rooted in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/cfr\/text\/28\/part-600\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Justice\u200d Department\u2062 regulations<\/a> adopted under Attorney General Janet Reno\u2063 in 1999 after Congress allowed the old \u201cindependent counsel\u201d\u2062 statute to lapse. That law had fueled sprawling inquiries from Iran-Contra to Whitewater by prosecutors overseen by\u200d a court rather than by the attorney \u2062general. Although that law ensured more independence than the\u200d current regulations, it \u200bled to excesses that eventually generated bipartisan opposition to\u200d renewing the statute.<\/p>\n<p>The DOJ recognized conflicts of interest would still arise and threaten public confidence in its \u200bintegrity. The special counsel\u2063 regulations were meant to \u200daddress that problem. However, attorneys \u200cgeneral \u200dhave only selectively followed portions of the regulations, choosing to ignore\u2062 certain provisions \u200bwhen it suits them because there is no enforcement \u200bmechanism. \u200dFor example, by appointing the current U.S. attorney from Delaware who has already been handling this case \u200dfor five years,\u200c Garland chose to\u200b ignore the portion of the regulations\u2063 that \u2062would require a special counsel be someone from outside the government. In light of the whistleblower testimony and the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/hunter-biden-plea-comer-says-foiled-plea-agreement-strips-biden-lawyers-of-bully-power\/\" title=\"Comer claims failed plea deal weakens Biden lawyers' influence.\">failed plea deal<\/a>, that decision undermines public confidence in the inquiry rather \u2064than enhancing it.<\/p>\n<p>Without any binding force of law, this type of special counsel status isn\u2019t actually all\u200c that \u2062special. The named prosecutor actually just exercises the attorney general\u2019s own statutory \u2064authority as delegated and described in the appointment\u2062 order.\u2062 Since Congress defines the scope\u2063 of the attorney general\u2019s statutory authority, it has every right to investigate how that authority is being used and whether the DOJ\u2019s procedures are\u2063 effective in preventing\u200b conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n<p>Spoiler \u200balert: They aren\u2019t.<\/p>\n<p>Studying\u2062 whether to resurrect some form of\u200b the independent counsel statute or impose some portions of \u200dthe special\u2063 counsel regulations as a statutory requirement would be more than enough of a legislative purpose to justify enforcing subpoenas to the Delaware\u200d prosecutors. \u200dAdd to that evidence of misleading testimony and letters to \u200bCongress about the scope of Weiss\u2019s \u2064authority, and the \u200bcase for compelled testimony and document production is \u2064already very strong \u2014 even without any \u200dformal impeachment\u200c inquiry\u2062 into the\u2062 officials involved.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Statutes Recognize Congressional Access<\/h2>\n<p>To hear some people talk,\u200d you\u2019d\u2062 think Congress must inevitably yield to the interests of any criminal\u2062 inquiry and defer\u200d to any prosecutor\u2019s discretionary whim with no public accountability. This is the unstated assumption of those who eagerly embrace <a href=\"https:\/\/www.collinsdictionary.com\/us\/dictionary\/english\/lawfare\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">lawfare<\/a> against domestic political \u2063opponents through the criminal process. It is uncritically adopted too often by people who should know better.<\/p>\n<p>The law recognizes, however, that insulating ongoing criminal cases \u2063from public scrutiny by elected officials is not the prime\u200d goal of government. The presidential pardon power is the ultimate example of this \u2062principle, but it \u200bcan also be seen in several statutory provisions that \u2063recognize: The congressional need for information to fulfill its constitutional duties can trump the \u2063interests of preserving a criminal case.<\/p>\n<p>As \u200bIran-Contra Independent\u2064 Counsel \u2063Lawrence Walsh noted:\u200d <\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\">\n<p>The\u200d legislative branch \u200bhas the power to decide whether it is more important\u2064 perhaps to destroy a\u2064 prosecution than \u200bto hold\u200b back testimony they need. They\u2062 make that decision. It is not a judicial decision, or a legal decision, but a political \u200ddecision of\u200d the highest importance.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>He should know. \u2063Oliver North\u2019s famously\u200d immunized \u2064testimony \u200dbefore Congress eventually led to\u200d Walsh\u2019s conviction of North being overturned\u2062 on \u2062appeal.<\/p>\n<p>The statutory \u2062procedure for Congress to obtain an order granting immunity for witness testimony is set out at <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/18\/6005\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">18 U.S.C.\u2062 \u00a7 6005<\/a> and \u2062implicitly anticipates sharing\u2062 information about ongoing criminal matters with \u2064Congress. The law requires that the\u200c attorney general receive 10 days \u2064prior \u2064notice of the request and allows a delay \u200dof up \u2064to 20 \u2064days, but it does not \u2063allow the attorney general \u200bto block the order. The notice and delay period merely enable consultation,\u200c during which the attorney general would presumably\u2062 need to share information about any ongoing criminal inquiry \u200dif there were any\u200d hope of persuading \u2064Congress to\u2062 abandon \u2064its plan\u200b to immunize \u200bthe witness.<\/p>\n<p>Similarly, statutes like <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/6103\">26 U.S.C. \u00a7 6103(f)(5)<\/a> (\u201cDisclosure by whistleblower\u201d)\u2062 explicitly authorize protected disclosures \u200dof\u200c otherwise <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/exclusive-reps-jordan-issa-demand-transparency-from-irs-over-partisan-leak-of-tax-records\/\" title=\"EXCLUSIVE: Reps. Jordan, Issa Demand Transparency From IRS Over \u2018Partisan\u2019 Leak Of Tax Records\">confidential tax return information<\/a> to certain committees of Congress without \u200dregard \u2063to whether it\u2019s related to an ongoing criminal inquiry. If not for this provision, Congress may never have learned about improprieties in the Hunter Biden case reported by the IRS whistleblowers. Whistleblower statutes such as <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/5\/2302\">5 U.S.C. \u00a7 2302<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/5\/2303\">\u00a7 2303<\/a> also protect\u2062 disclosures to\u200b Congress by law enforcement personnel\u2063 at\u200d other agencies, including the \u200bFBI.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">A Long\u200b History of Precedents<\/h2>\n<p>Congress has many \u200dtimes obtained testimony and documents from prosecutors involved in active probes, including deliberative prosecutorial memoranda. Below are just a handful of the dozens from the past century.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=FcdGAQAAMAAJ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Palmer Raids:<\/a><\/strong>  In 1920 and 1921, Congress investigated \u200bAttorney General Mitchell Palmer\u2019s \u200draids on suspected communists, and Palmer testified in public <a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=FcdGAQAAMAAJ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">House<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=g1pFAQAAMAAJ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Senate<\/a> hearings regarding deportation cases open on appeal.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=xJUhAAAAMAAJ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Teapot Dome:<\/a><\/strong>  The\u2064 next year, Congress opened investigations into the Teapot Dome scandal. After \u2063Congress investigated for approximately a year and a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/no-appointing-a-special-counsel-is-not-a-license-for-doj-to-obstruct-congress\/\" title=\"No, 'Special Counsel' doesn't allow DOJ to obstruct Congress.\">half suspicious \u200bfinancial transactions surrounding<\/a> the Interior Department\u2019s disposition of oil and gas leases, it eventually became\u200d clear that an equally big problem was the Justice Department\u2019s failure to prosecute wrongdoers.<\/p>\n<p>When \u200cCongress began discussing the need for a special\u2063 counsel to take prosecutions out of \u2063the\u2064 hands of the Justice Department, President Calvin Coolidge attempted to get ahead of the issue by\u2062 indicating on Jan. \u206427, 1924, his \u2062intent to nominate two\u200c such special counsels (a\u200b Republican \u200dand a Democrat). Congress adopted a joint \u200bresolution requiring that the president appoint the special counsels \u2014 subject to\u2064 confirmation by the Senate. After rejecting the first two nominees, the Senate confirmed two \u200bothers in mid-February 1924.<\/p>\n<p>Congress did not wait \u200bfor the \u2064newly confirmed counsels to finish their work. \u200cOn March 1, 1924, <a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=xJUhAAAAMAAJ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">the Senate established its own select committee<\/a> to \u200cinvestigate \u200cthe same\u2063 prosecutorial decisions for \u2062which\u200b the special counsel \u2062now\u2064 had jurisdiction. Its goal was to probe the Justice Department\u2019s prosecutorial decisions and find cases\u2063 that could\u2062 still be prosecuted. It interviewed dozens of Justice Department attorneys \u2014 including \u2062about \u200bopen cases \u2014 and obtained\u2062 investigative\u200c records and prosecutorial memoranda.\u200b <\/p>\n<p>When Attorney General \u2063Harry\u2064 Daugherty\u2019s brother refused to testify\u200d on the grounds that he was a private citizen, the \u2064case rose to the Supreme Court. The 1927 decision in <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/273\/135\/#tab-opinion-1931647\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>McGrain \u200bv.\u200b Daugherty<\/em><\/a>  \u201csustain[ed] the power of \u200deither\u2063 house to conduct investigations and \u2062exact testimony from witnesses for legislative \u200dpurposes.\u201d In this \u200dcase, it noted, \u201c[T]he subject to be investigated was the administration of\u2064 the Department of Justice \u2014 \u200bwhether its functions were being properly discharged or were being neglected or\u200c misdirected, and particularly \u200bwhether the Attorney General and his \u200dassistants were performing or neglecting their duties in respect\u200d of the institution\u2062 and prosecution \u200cof proceedings to\u200d punish \u2064crimes and enforce appropriate remedies against the wrongdoers, specific instances of alleged neglect being recited.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But what legislative purpose could come from investigating open cases? The court answered:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\">\n<p>The functions\u200b of the Department of Justice, the powers and duties of the Attorney General, and the duties of his\u2062 assistants are all subject to regulation by congressional legislation, and \u2026 the department\u200d is maintained \u2062and its\u200b activities are\u200b carried on under such appropriations as, in the judgment \u200dof\u2063 Congress, are needed from\u200c year to year.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>The Supreme Court also reaffirmed in\u2064 this case Congress\u2019s inherent power to punish witnesses who refused to provide testimony. The court noted in <em>Daugherty<\/em>: <\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\">\n<p>The power of inquiry \u2014 with process to enforce it \u2014 is an essential and appropriate\u200b auxiliary to the legislative function. \u2026 Mere requests\u2063 for \u2026 information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate\u2064 or complete,\u200d so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Two years later, another subject of the investigation, Harry Sinclair, argued before the Supreme Court that because the joint resolution signed into law on Feb.\u2064 8, 1924, gave a\u2063 special counsel jurisdiction\u2062 to \u2062investigate his\u200d affairs, \u200bCongress has ceded its own such\u200b jurisdiction to the courts. The Court held in <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/279\/263\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Sinclair v. United States<\/em><\/a>: \u201cNeither [the] Joint Resolution \u2026 nor the action taken under it operated to divest the Senate or the committee \u200dof power further to investigate. \u2026 The\u200d authority of that body, directly or \u2064through its committees, to require pertinent\u2063 disclosures in\u2064 aid\u200b of its own constitutional power is not abridged because the information sought \u2064to be elicited may also be of use\u200b in \u2063 [the prosecution of pending] suits.\u201d The court upheld Sinclair\u2019s punishment for contempt of Congress.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books\/about\/Investigation_of_the_Department_of_Justi.html?id=7jVvC8xGpiEC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Special Subcommittee to Investigate the \u200bDepartment of \u200dJustice:<\/strong><\/a>  In early 1952, the House established a select committee of the Judiciary Committee to investigate (among other\u200d things) \u200dthe Justice Department\u2019s failure to enforce federal tax fraud and bribery laws. Around the same time, the attorney general appointed a \u201cSpecial \u200cAssistant to the Attorney General,\u201d Newbold Morris, to investigate the same matters. <\/p>\n<p>Morris was fired by the attorney general just 63 days later and thus did not\u200b testify before\u200d the subcommittee until a week after his \u2064removal.\u2064 However, in its overall review \u2064of the Justice Department\u2019s failure to prosecute\u2062 cases, the subcommittee went on to interview \u200ca sitting assistant U.S. attorney and the appellate \u2063chief of the Justice Department\u2019s Tax Division, as well as several members of a St. Louis grand jury. <\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.senate.gov\/about\/powers-procedures\/investigations\/church-committee.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Church Committee:<\/a><em> <\/em><\/strong>In January 1975, revelations emerging from\u200c Watergate \u2063\u2014 that the executive branch has\u2064 used intelligence agencies to conduct domestic operations \u2014 led to the Senate establishing a select committee that came to be known for its chairman, Sen. Frank Church. The 800-plus witnesses \u200binterviewed\u200b over the next year \u2063included a host of\u200d Justice Department officials, from the attorney general down to an assistant section chief at\u2063 the FBI. Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights also held \u200dhearings with sitting DOJ officials.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.intelligence.senate.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/961015.pdf\"><strong>Billy Carter:<\/strong><\/a>  In July\u2064 1980, the\u2063 Senate established a select \u200dcommittee of its\u2063 Judiciary Committee to investigate the relationship between President Jimmy Carter\u2019s brother, Billy Carter, and the government of Libya, as well as whether the Justice \u2062Department had \u2062properly handled\u2064 an investigation into that relationship and a decision to proceed civilly rather than with criminal prosecution. \u2063 <\/p>\n<p>The attorney general, the assistant attorney general over the Justice \u200cDepartment\u2019s \u2062Criminal Division, and three \u2062deputy \u200bassistant attorneys general\u2062 all provided testimony\u200c to the subcommittee. The department also provided prosecutorial memoranda, correspondence with\u2062 the \u200ddefendant, and other\u2062 investigative reports and \u2062interview summaries.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=9vJPUmRl8NIC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ABSCAM:<\/a><em> <\/em><\/strong>In late-March 1982, the Senate established a select committee to study Justice Department domestic undercover operations. The committee conducted interviews of a host of department witnesses, including line-level attorneys on Brooklyn\u2019s Organized Crime Strike Force. <\/p>\n<p>Recognizing that their preferences\u200c had to bow to \u200cconstitutional oversight realities, Justice\u2064 officials <a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=9vJPUmRl8NIC&#038;newbks=1&#038;newbks_redir=0&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;pg=PA486&#038;hl=en#v=onepage&#038;q&#038;f=false\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">wrote to the select committee<\/a> on\u200d July 15, 1982: \u2062\u201c[T]he Department does not normally permit \u200dStrike Force attorneys to \u200dtestify before congressional committees. \u2026 [W]e have traditionally resisted questioning of this kind because it tends to inhibit prosecutors from proceeding through their normal\u200d tasks free from the fear that\u2064 they may be second-guessed, with the benefit of hindsight, long after they take actions and make difficult judgments in\u200c the\u2063 course of their duties.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In a statement that applies to all investigative interviews, the DOJ added that\u2064 it would produce line-level\u2062 attorneys \u201cbecause of their value \u200dto you as fact\u200d witnesses\u200b and because \u2063you have assured us \u200cthat they will be asked to testify solely as to matters of fact within \u2063their\u2062 personal knowledge and not conclusions or matters of policy.\u201d The department also produced more than 20,000\u200c pages of documents, including prosecutorial\u2062 memoranda. \u200dThe House Judiciary Subcommittee\u2062 on Civil and Constitutional Rights conducted a similar investigation, also\u200c receiving access to confidential DOJ\u200c documents.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=ew_K3auTwEgC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">E.F. Hutton:<\/a><\/strong>  \u2062 In 1985 and\u2062 1986, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime investigated the Justice Department\u2019s \u2062conclusion of a plea agreement with stock brokerage firm\u200b E.F. Hutton. Hutton pleaded guilty to \u200b2,000 \u200dcounts of felony mail and wire fraud in May 1985, yet the department immunized a\u2062 number of witnesses and \u2064ultimately charged none, instead simply requiring the payment of a $2 million fine\u200c and other\u200d conditions. The Justice Department produced a prosecutorial memorandum to the subcommittee.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=UOy-7sG5CVEC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Iran-Contra:<\/a><em> <\/em><\/strong>On Jan. 6 \u200dand 7, \u200d1987, the Senate and House, respectively, established select committees to investigate arms sales to Iran and the diversion of funds to Contras in Nicaragua. The two chambers then merged their investigations and \u2063hearings. The\u200d investigators had\u2062 approximately 500 depositions and other interviews, from the attorney \u200dgeneral\u2064 down to the lowest-level\u2062 Justice Department officials \u200bwith knowledge of the case. Despite initial protests\u200b by the department that producing \u2064documents might prejudice pending or anticipated litigation\u2062 by the independent counsel, the 1 million-plus pages of documents obtained by the committees included the documents they sought\u2062 from the DOJ.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=UOy-7sG5CVEC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Ruby Ridge:<\/a><em> <\/em><\/strong>In 1995,\u2064 the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology\u2064 and Government Information investigated the Justice Department\u2019s conduct preceding and during \u2064the siege of Randall Weaver\u2019s home at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. The subcommittee interviewed line\u2064 witnesses and agents, the U.S. attorney for the District of Idaho, and other department officials.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/oversight.house.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/10-29-12-Fast-and-Furious-The-Anatomy-of-a-Failed-Operation-Part-II-of-III-Report.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Operation Fast and Furious:<\/a><em> <\/em><\/strong>Beginning in 2011, we\u200b led Sen. \u2064Chuck Grassley\u2019s investigation for the Senate Judiciary Committee into the Bureau of Alcohol,\u2062 Tobacco, \u2062Firearms and \u2063Explosives\u2019\u2062 Operation Fast and Furious,\u2062 where the gunwalking of more than 2,000 firearms contributed to the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent \u200dBrian Terry. \u2064We interviewed\u200c line officials, the U.S. attorney\u200d for the District of Arizona, and the chain of command in ATF and into the Justice Department, all while\u2064 the prosecutions and appeals of various individuals \u200bcharged in \u2062the operation were ongoing.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Congress Must Act<\/h2>\n<p>Given all this history and our\u2062 personal experience in congressional oversight \u200bof \u2063federal law enforcement, it is frustrating to see even some members of Congress uncritically assume that their authority\u2063 ends where\u200b a criminal inquiry begins.<\/p>\n<p>It does not.<\/p>\n<p>While it \u2062is\u200d clearly not\u2062 a prerequisite to obtaining Justice Department testimony or documents in pending matters, several of the investigations above began with the body voting to establish a select committee. \u2064The current House has the added advantage of\u2063 having already empaneled \u2063the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of \u200bthe Federal Government and tasked it\u200c with looking into the expansive authority vested in the executive branch to \u2064investigate citizens of the \u200dUnited States, \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/118th-congress\/house-resolution\/12\/text\">including ongoing criminal investigations<\/a>.\u201d \u2063Surely an example like\u2063 this where that expansive authority was <em>not <\/em>used against the president\u2019s son in the same aggressive ways it has been used in others is worthy \u2063of investigation. \u2063 <\/p>\n<p>By providing hundreds of emails between the Biden camp and the Justice Department to friendly press outlets, either \u200bHunter Biden\u2019s legal team or \u2063the Justice Department has waived any\u2063 claim of confidentiality. Congress \u200cshould subpoena those communications \u200bimmediately and let the public\u2062 read them in full rather than \u200brelying on selected \u200bsnippets <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2023\/08\/21\/regime-media-launder-dirty-details-of-hunter-bidens-plea-deal-and-his-dads-filthy-doj\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">chosen for curated narratives<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>We \u2063aren\u2019t suggesting that \u200denforcing \u200dCongress\u2019s constitutional right \u2062to information on pending criminal inquiries\u2062 will \u2064be easy. It will take work and\u200d a shift in mindset away \u2063from relying on the executive branch or the \u200ccourts to vindicate legislative branch oversight prerogatives. Congress must \u2062rely \u200con its own constitutional powers \u2014 inherent contempt, the\u2063 power\u2063 of the purse, and impeachment \u2014 to be an effective check and \u2063balance on executive power once again. <\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-c916193839376e91200445a429d48479 fdrlst__b89e9-after-post-content\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-c916193839376e91200445a429d48479\"><\/div>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\">    \t\t\t\t\t   \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Justice Department&#8217;s mishandling of the Hunter Biden case, along with whistleblower revelations, the failed plea deal, and the appointment of David Weiss as &#8220;special counsel,&#8221; has increased the demand for public scrutiny. The Biden legal team has now seemingly disclosed a significant amount of information, further emphasizing the need for transparency.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2322,"featured_media":2006820,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2006819","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2006819","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2322"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2006819"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2006819\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2006820"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2006819"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2006819"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2006819"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}