The allegation is Rosenstein at a meeting none us attended reminded Nunes and cohorts (in some fashion, worded some way) that participation in part of an ongoing effort to obstruct justice might be shown were he to subpoena Nunes and cohort text messages and emails showing such. Not a threat. A discretionary power, held in restraint up to the present; i.e., no subpoena yet, not even a voluntary records disclosure request, so far as the public knows.
That FOX stuff says:
“It is a crime for a government official to use his office to threaten anyone, including a member of Congress, for exercising a constitutionally protected right. See 18 USC 242 and other similar abuse of power statutes.”
Well, again investigation of a crime, potential or otherwise with innocence presumed until proven guilty [or pled guilty], involves no constitutionally protected right to engage in an unlawful ongoing conspiracy to obstruct justice and impede an investigation into whether some official status was at play in some sanctions relief promising in exchange for hacked emails damaging or alleged to be damaging against a political foe.
It's not there that Rosenstein overstepped any lawful constraint, at least not within the published FOX speculations.
However, consider the criminal law [some say criminal justice] norm of a prosecutor overcharging a defendant's criminal conduct and the prosecutor and public defender meeting and cutting a plea deal. That fits the statute more than anything Rosenstein is alleged to have done, (exact words not quoted in any exchange which may have happened nor contextual quoting published either), since a constitutional right of a defendant charged with a crime to have a jury trial is undeniable, yet the coercion in a plea deal is not a surprise to anybody. It happens every day nationwide, and is a questionable practice subject to substantial abuse if not used in constrained ways.
Wikipedia.
Always Remember: Nunes, the Bush family, and like minded clowns created FISA as open as it stands to gross abuse any time any moment, worded into law as it is, and now these Republican shills act and moan about their being subject to that flawed law, (which readers can judge as good or bad), no differently for them than for everyone else. Let Nunes' shoe pinch. Its good for him. It gives him a perhaps broader perspective.
 |
| Ozzie [no Harriet] |
And there is no "sting" entrapment arguments which would apply to Nunes et al. Recall that Ozzie was encouraged, but the will was there with only an apparent opportunity set of circumstances offered him.
You tell me, how do you read Nunes' intent?
__________UPDATE___________
ZeroHedge.
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Does, and more importantly, should Rod Rosenstein hold a legitimate Constitutional power to compel production of Congressional papers for his and DoJ staff examination? Or for production to a special prosecutor, the situation by name and methods, special? If such power should exist, under all circumstances, or only in extraordinary situations case-by-case? Was Abscam actually an overreach of federal executive power? Or necessary to undermine government corruption? Three branches, how to interrelate in a fair and balanced Constitutional manner? There could be legitimate debate . . . and there has been.