Rosenstein "Supports Oversight', then Says There Is No Constitutional Basis for it..

Rosenstein ,apparently, believes that being expected to submit to Congressinal oversight, and HONOR Congressional subpoenaes, under threat of this own removal from office = extortion.

He also claims that there is no "Consitutional basis" for Congressional oversight, while claiming to "support oversight".

More Obama Swamp KGB-FBI/DOJ ARROGANT, leftover nonsense. He needs to GO, ASAP:

Rosenstein: 'We Strongly Support Appropriate Congressional Oversight,' But DOJ Will Not Be 'Extorted'



(CNSNews.com) - In a Q-and-A session at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein -- the man overseeing the secret Robert Mueller investigation -- was asked how the Justice Department balances the need for confidential investigations with congressional requests for information about those investigations.

"Funny you should ask that question," Rosenstein replied. He said the Justice Department supports "appropriate" oversight but will not be "extorted."

Rosenstein raised what he called an "interesting historical point," saying, "There's actually not a constitutional basis for oversight. That's something that's been viewed as sort of an implied power, and has developed over the years."

He noted that there have been conflicts between the Executive and Legislative branches regarding oversight throughout history:

"You know, I've been in the department for almost 30 years. Going back hundreds of years, these conflicts have arisen," Rosenstein said.

There's a lot of talk about FISA applications. And many people that I -- I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application -- a FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.

In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit, signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct, to the best of his knowledge and belief.

And that's the way we operate. And, if it's wrong -- sometimes it is -- if you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences. Sometimes, there are innocent errors. But, if not, you can face discipline or potentially even prosecution.

In response to Rosenstein's comments, Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, tweeted on Tuesday: "If he believes being asked to do his job is ‘extortion,’ then Rod Rosenstein should step aside and allow us to find a new Deputy Attorney General—preferably one who is interested in transparency."



Conservative Republicans have criticized Rod Rosenstein for appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel without evidence that any crime was commited; and they note that Rosenstein signed some of the FISA renewal applications for surveillance on Carter Page, a volunteer adviser with the Trump campaign.



Republicans want to see those FISA applications, which reportedly used opposition research, paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as the basis for surveilling Carter Page.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...-appropriate-congressional-oversight-doj-will



For Rosenstein's information:


Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.
Oversight is an implied rather than an enumerated power under the U.S. Constitution.[2] The government's charter does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the executive, to have access to records or materials held by the executive, or to issue subpoenas for documents or testimony from the executive.

There was little discussion of the power to oversee, review, or investigate executive activity at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or later in The Federalist Papers, which argued in favor of ratification of the Constitution. The lack of debate was because oversight and its attendant authority were seen as an inherent power of representative assemblies which enacted public law.[3]

Oversight also derives from the many and varied express powers of the Congress in the Constitution. It is implied in the legislature's authority, among other powers and duties, to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent.

The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed the oversight powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties, on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the Court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress was considering a subject "on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit".[4]

If Congress believes that an agency has drifted from its original mandate, Congress can respond in a number of ways. Congress can pass a law to overrule agency decisions, or to narrow the agency's jurisdiction. Congress can use its appropriations power to restrict the agency's funding. Congress can also narrow the agency's regulatory authority


Think again, Rod.

 

Rod Rosenstein Suggests Effort to Impeach Him Amounts to "Extortion"
Peepers is Swamp Scum:

DiGenova Sees "Fireable Offense" in Rosenstein Blocking Congress

 

Talk about some selective editing from a supremely biased source. Especially given the fact that your Wikipedia "information for Rosenstein" includes the following sentence: "OVERSIGHT IS AN IMPLIED RATHER THAN AN ENUMERATED POWER UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION." Which is precisely what Rosenstein said.

Meanwhile, Rosenstein also implied that the members of the House Freedom Caucus are cowards because they are unwilling to sign their name to a document, especially given that they are willing to leak the draft of the document.

Kudos to Rosenstein for standing up for the DOJ and the rule of law.

 

GREAT JOB PROVIDING THE EVIDENCE TO support ROSENSTEIN'S ARGUMENT.

 

Lol,

-elected representatives of the American people = bad
-Dirty cops hiding their activities = good

-secret investigations, mid-night raids = good
-oversight by the people through their elected representatives = bad

Welcome to America 1984, the liberal edition.

 

Rosenstein is simply trying to save his own skin and in doing so has exposed himself as an unabashed Constitutional miscreant.

 

Look at Mr.Lawyer defending Rosenstein's ARROGANT disregard for established law:


The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed the oversight powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties, on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the Court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress was considering a subject "on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit".[4]

 

GREAT JOB IGNORING THE Constitutional FACTS:
There was little discussion of the power to oversee, review, or investigate executive activity at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or later in The Federalist Papers, which argued in favor of ratification of the Constitution. The lack of debate was because oversight and its attendant authority were seen as an inherent power of representative assemblies which enacted public law.[3]


The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed the oversight powers of Congress...


Der....some "lawyer"...hope your unfortunate clients look good in orange...

 

Precisely. He is an arrogant ass....

 

OH LOOK, YOU - YET AGAIN - JUST confirmed WHAT ROSENSTEIN SAID. JUST AS A refresher, HERE IS WHAT ROSENSTEIN SAID:

 

Trump Considers Using His Presidential Power After DOJ Again Refuses to Turn Over Unredacted Rosenstein Memo Detailing Scope of Mueller Probe.



The DOJ again refused to hand over to Congress the unredacted Rosenstein memo detailing the scope of Mueller’s probe, even though Trump is not asserting privilege. Apparently Peepers is attempting to assert his own unconstitutional privilege.

Freedom Caucus Chairman, Mark Meadows drafted “articles of impeachment” against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as a “last resort” this week.

On Tuesday, Rosenstein freaked and referred to the impeachment threat as “extortion.”

Rep. Meadows was not fazed by Rosenstein and hit back harder.

President Trump has had enough of the stonewalling and unconstitutional witch hunt.

On Wednesday morning, in response to the stonewalling by the DOJ, Trump threatened to use his presidential powers.

Trump tweeted: A Rigged System – They don’t want to turn over Documents to Congress. What are they afraid of? Why so much redacting? Why such unequal “justice?” At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved!


Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump


A Rigged System - They don’t want to turn over Documents to Congress. What are they afraid of? Why so much redacting? Why such unequal “justice?” At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved!

7:45 AM - May 2, 2018

 

There was little discussion of the power to oversee, review, or investigate executive activity at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or later in The Federalist Papers, which argued in favor of ratification of the Constitution. The lack of debate was because oversight and its attendant authority were seen as an inherent power of representative assemblies which enacted public law.[3]


The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed the oversight powers of Congress...


Apparently, your Brilliant Legal Mind fails to grasp that the USSC has CONFIRMED Congress' powers of oversight...moving them FAR BEYOND "IMPLIED".
Just doesn't soak in that Massive Legal Mind....

 

Nothing funnier than watching our idiot president whine about his OWN appointments lol
You picked these people moron!

 

Yea, that's enough. Rosenstein was correct. The notion of Congressional oversight was implied and later confirmed (i.e. developed over time) by the Supreme Court. Deal with the fact that Republicans are cowards who leak their own drafts without putting a name to the document and that Rosenstein is an actual representative of the law and order that you trumpettes tried to champion - until you realized that Trump violated the law and order.

And with that, welcome to ignore.

 

So just so I get what your saying, you are indeed saying that congress has oversight due to the supreme court ruling?

 

Absolutely. I was merely making note that Rosenstein was also correct when he said that there was no constitutional basis (i.e. it is not mentioned in the constitution), but that it is an implied power which developed over time.

The OP tried to jump on the "no constitutional basis" portion of the quote to make the claim that Rosenstein was trying to argue that Congress can not constitutionally provide oversight. And that is not what he implied in the slightest.

 

Yet its you people who would whine if he fired them, go figure...

 

Rosenstein is fullacrap, in both his mistaken Constitutional claims, as proven, and if he thinks being expected to do his job, is "being extorted"; he should resign.

Your surrender is accepted. Give my regards to your poor clients. They need some "soap on a rope"...just in case?

 

No, he claimed there was no constitutional basis. An implied Constitutional basis is none the less a constitutional basis.

 

It's almost like these emeffers have forgotten who they work for.

 

Republicans eating their own!

The Citizens of the United States?

 

Congress can't win this on its own remit.

Congress must submit their requests for subpoenas to the courts, not to DOJ itself.

 

The German SS had no oversight. Is that what libs are defending?

 

Yah what sort of moron keeps these idiots employed?? Lol

 

Read the sentence where he supposedly said no basis. Literally the next ~7 words.