Report: House GOP to Interview FBI Officials Over Hillary Email Probe
Gowdy explained that the investigation is “a serious inquiry into the bureau’s conduct during the Clinton investigation.”
The Hill has reported that the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees will interview three witnesses in June over the FBI’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email probe.
They will interview “Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, and Michael Steinbach, the former head of the FBI’s national security division,” along with “John Giacalone, who preceded Steinbach as the bureau’s top national security official and oversaw the first seven months of the Clinton probe.”
From The Hill:
The joint Judiciary-Oversight review — led by chairs Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C. — is centered on the bureau’s decisionmaking in both the investigation of Clinton’s private email server and the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
But its progress had stalled in the months since it was first announced.
Since October of 2017, the panel is believed to have interviewed only two witnesses — of about 20 potential witnesses — infuriating conservative members who are eager to uncover what some have characterized as “corruption.”
Of course the Democrats claim that Goodlatte and Gowdy have used this as a way “to shield Trump,” but Gowdy explained that the investigation is “a serious inquiry into the bureau’s conduct during the Clinton investigation” and not “an effort to re-litigate the decision not to bring charges against the former Secretary of State.”
The Hill noted that Priestap has recently felt heat from conservatives since he served as the head of the FBI counterintelligence division, which placed him in “a pivotal leadership position in both the Clinton and Russia probes.” Plus, in that position, he “was in a supervisory position over counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok.”
The three men will have separate interviews: Priestap in the beginning of June, Giacalone the second week of the month, and Steinbach in the last week.
The news comes a few weeks after Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, demanded the Department of Justice investigate “allegations that the FBI was pressured by the Obama administration to shut down a probe into the Clinton Foundation during the 2016 presidential election.”
In his letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Goodlatte included revelations in the inspector general’s report on Andrew McCabe:
“I have serious concerns that the Department, during the Obama Administration, attempted to obstruct justice by attempting to inappropriately terminate an FBI investigation on the Clinton Foundation,” Goodlatte wrote. “Under the facts laid out by the DOJ Inspector General (IG), it is shocking to hear that the Obama Department of Justice may have allowed politics to dictate what cases should or should not be pursued.”
The IG report, released last month, concluded that McCabe made leaks to the media that were designed to combat the perception that he had a conflict of interest in overseeing dual FBI investigations related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including one related to the Clinton Foundation and another related to her use of a private email server.
McCabe’s disclosure recounted his version of a conversation with a DOJ official about the investigation, in which McCabe says he pushed back on concerns about FBI agents taking “overt steps” during the presidential campaign.
The Wall Street Journal reported that “a senior Justice Department official called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season. … The Justice Department official was ‘very pissed off,’ according to one person close to McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the department considered dormant.”
Then on May 22, a group of House Republicans planned a resolution that asks “for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate alleged misconduct at the FBI and Justice Department” in three situations: Hillary’s email server, progress of Robert Mueller’s investigation, and possible abuses of FISA.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Expect a media embargo.
Report: House GOP to Interview FBI Officials Over Hillary Email Probe
So, are they gonna ask What Happened?
And will the witnesses be under oath?
Dont youse guys realize a Clinton can do no wrong?
Um, I’m pretty sure the FBI has exonerated itself of any wrongdoing.
…but we’ll see. That book isn’t closed yet.
As I’ve said, “Investigate all the things. Prosecute as warranted”.
But this is a *congressional* investigation, by mostly GOPe representatives, two features which typically lead to slow motion kabuki.
OH, no, Henry. I’m not limiting anyone to any investigative agency in my thinking. Name your very bestest, favorite investigative outfit…even one that doesn’t now exist…and I’m for it. I want all the poisons to hatch out of the mud. (I, Claudius reference there!)
Blue Moon Detective Agency/. David and Maddie will get to the bottom of it. If they’re not available, I want Joe Mannix.
Don’t hold your breath for justice served in the outcome.
Not with that rat sessions having infiltrated the justice department.
When it looks like a rat, talks like a rat, acts like a rat, smells like a rat, … it is a rat.
The Page Strzok texts indicate Priestap may have been kept out of the loop.
They said he was ” a worry wart” and ask Strzok why he had to be involved in everything .
Many believe Priestap has flipped on McCabe and company
Being Evil seems more practical and efficient at first glance, it’s only after you are knee deep in it that you realize you must keep half your firepower in constant reserve for the “sudden and inevitable betrayal”
Yesterday I read that several rank and file FBI are asking to be subpeoned so they can tell Congress about all the corrupt shenanigans going on at FBI.
I wonder if the opening of this inquiry is related.
And can someone explain to me why these whistleblowers seem to be requesting to be subpeoned as if that will shield them? I’m ignorant of the law, but what advantages does be subpeoned give them? They can’t just walk into the Chairman’s office and tell all?
They can at least say that they were forced to give evidence, and afraid to lie because they were under oath, rather than just ratting out their superiors because it was the right thing to do. Having to answer a subpoena and testify under threat of perjury charges gives them cover within the organization, and lessens the chances of retribution from the allies of those they may implicate in illegal. or unethical actions.
Until people start going to jail, nothing will ever change.
I have very little faith in congressional committees and their investigations. It seems that whenever they get near to actually producing results, the investigation is shut down, diverted in some other direction, or the chairman replaced. The Republican leadership wants to present the image that they’re doing something, without actually finding anything useful that might result in people being prosecuted. The only one I can remember accomplishing anything is Nunes, and they pulled him out of his position (though temporarily) with some sort of fake ethics charges.
Shisters all of them
That wasn’t what we call a probe.
We call it a cover-up.