Following my proposal for a Select Committee of the Congress to publicly investigate The Conspiracy to Overturn the Election (as we might call it), a couple of Updates:
UPDATE 22Jan18: The Daily Caller News Foundation has posted a 30-minute interview with former US Attorney Joseph diGenova, who provides a lucid and concise description of the growing case against the anti-Trump conspirators in the Deep State. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) only last week invited members of the House Intelligence Committee, which he chairs, to read a classified memo that describes DOJ-FBI abuses of the FISA court; the Republican members of the Committee are now clamoring for its release to the whole Congress and to the public. Attorney diGenova’s discussion in the interview incorporates what we know about that memo.
The interview is HERE. I’ll try embedding; if you don’t see the video, click the word ‘HERE’. It is must watching!
UPDATE 2, 22Jan18: I’m learning a little more about Joseph diGenova, from another interview, wherein he recalls some of his formidable history in legal and political matters. Apropos of my argument against another Special Counsel to investigate the anti-Trump Conspiracy, Mr diGenova forcefully denounces the law that created the SCs:
I became very concerned about the Independent Counsel Statute after I watched what had been done after the Iran–Contra Affair, which I thought was just outrageous. The concept of an independent counsel is a bad thing. It’s like what Justice [Antonin] Scalia said in Morrison v. Olson, which is that nothing good is going to come from giving a lawyer a case, an unlimited budget, and a single target. And nothing good did come from it. There were a series of independent counsels for the dumbest things that would have been thrown out of most U.S. attorneys’ offices in a New York minute once they got a look at the merits. The only reason these counsels existed was because the triggering mechanism in the statute was so low. They were costly to the government and to the citizens who became ensnared in them. All those people on Capitol Hill who were so excited about independent counsels when Republican presidents were being victimized by them had second thoughts when they saw Bill Clinton being ensnared. It was a very healthy thing for them to see how bad this law was.
The point of the statute was to “take politically sensitive material out of the Justice Department,” but my point of view has always been that if the Justice Department couldn’t do this job, then we were in a lot of trouble. Also, the idea of an independent counsel was to investigate a president for some constitutional offense, yet in reality these were peanut cases for every member of the cabinet and subcabinet. There were hundreds of people who were covered by this statute. When you go back and look at the structure of this statute, you have to ask yourself what were they thinking up on Capitol Hill, and the answer is they weren’t. People forget that this was Jimmy Carter’s idea as part of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 that was a reaction to Watergate. It was bad public policy, it ruined a lot of peoples’ lives, it cost people inordinate sums of money, and it served no useful public purpose other than to wreak havoc for sitting presidents.
The whole text of this 2013 interview is HERE. The next time a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, President Trump should take a good look at Joseph diGenova for the position.
UPDATE 3, 22Jan18: Astonishing new development: The FBI, in the process of turning over tens of thousands of text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, has managed to ‘lose’ five crucial months of them, right when Strzok’s ‘insurance policy’ was being implemented. Shades of Rosemary Woods’s (Watergate) ’18-minute tape gap’!
John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog leads us to Joe diGenova’s comments on the twenty-first century ‘tape gap’, via Attorney diGenova’s regular appearance on Washington, DC’s WMAL.
Go HERE for the audio (begins after a commercial).