On Thursday chairman Bob Goodlatte sends a formal subpoena to the DOJ (Inspector General Michael Horowitz) for documents regarding the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommendation to fire former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
However, it’s not the subpoena that should make the news. Pay close attention to the DOJ response.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) is one of the top three people throughout the entirety of congress with a comprehensive knowledge of the events surrounding the investigations of the FBI and DOJ. Chairman Goodlatte is one of only four people outside the DOJ who have read the full DOJ FISA application used for a Title-1 Surveillance warrant of Carter Page.
The House Judiciary Committee holds the primary statutory oversight over the U.S. Department of Justice. Additionally, Chairman Goodlatte is the congressional office working closest with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. In short, Goodlatte is the center of all ‘oversight’ information circling the investigations into the DOJ and FBI.
However, all of that said, even Chairman Bob Goodlatte doesn’t, and shouldn’t, know what criminal investigations are underway. We’ve explained this dynamic of disconnect numerous times. We really began emphasizing this when AG Jeff Sessions admitted he brought in a prosecutor from outside Washington DC to work with Inspector General Horowitz.
You can read the Goodlatte Subpoenas – HERE – along with the letter that accompanies his demand. However, more important is the response from the DOJ as communicated by Fox News journalist Chad Pergram (emphasis mine):
Oh, what’s that? Yes, the DOJ has to review the demand for evidence because release of those documents might conflict with ongoing Grand Jury information (evidence). Yes, that means a Grand Jury is impaneled, exactly as we expected.
Yes, that also means there are “law enforcement actions” currently ongoing as a result of the prosecutor assigned to reviewing the evidence discovered by Inspector General Horowitz.
Are there still those who doubt?
There has been a great deal of consternation, directed toward AG Jeff Sessions surrounding the ongoing FISA abuse scandal and the larger issues of unlawful DOJ and FBI conduct in their political investigation of candidate Donald Trump. It is a matter of great division amid people who follow the details. Yet there is overwhelming evidence he assigned a prosecutor to conduct a criminal investigation of the FBI and DOJ “small group” a long time ago. Now we know, with certainty, a GRAND JURY is empaneled.
… I have appointed a person outside of Washington, many years in the Department of Justice to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us; and we’re conducting that investigation. (read more)
Evidence of this prosecutor, and the Grand Jury, was also visible within the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. –SEE HERE– We’ve been talking about this since it became obvious someone was giving information to congressional investigators.
♦First, the question: If Jeff Sessions has appointed a prosecutor to work with Inspector General Horowitz, why do congressional reps keep asking for a second special counsel?
The answer is a lot simpler than we might think: They don’t know.
The legislative branch of the government doesn’t know what the criminal investigations are of the executive branch of government; AND AG Jeff Sessions has repeatedly said his intention is to restore the proper, appropriate and professional standards of the U.S. Department of Justice. (ie. no talking about criminal investigations)
Within this specific investigation there is a triple role. ¹A DOJ Inspector General conducting an internal investigation; ² Appropriate congressional oversight; and ³ the collection of evidence that might also be used in criminal indictments.
Within the IG collection of evidence there are two competing issues: #1) Evidence of misconduct and political bias (shared openly with congress and oversight); and #2) evidence of illegal activity (retained from congress to preserve integrity of evidence for later used in criminal proceedings); this is where the “outside DC prosecutor” comes in.
Which brings us to point #2