“LET US IN!” House Republicans LITERALLY Scream

While for many years it has been common practice to exclude some Members of Congress from sensitive Congressional investigations if they are not committee members – such as when Republicans began an investigation into the 2012 attack upon the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya – apparently, Republicans think the rules don’t apply to them, and when things don’t go their way, behave like petulant children.

About 2 dozen House Republicans staged a protest outside the closed-door, secure room committee where depositions were ongoing, and screamed “LET US IN! LET US IN!”

Flanked by about two dozen House Republicans, U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., argues that all GOP lawmakers should have access to closed-door depositions in the impeachment inquiry. Committee rules dictate that only those on the panels conducting the probe can attend.
Image by Alex Wong/Getty Images

The area is designated as secure — meaning that classified materials and witness testimony is discussed there, and only select lawmakers and a small number of staff are allowed entry.

Republican lawmakers tried to enter with their cellphones, which is a violation of the rules for a secure information facility and a breach of national security protocols. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA-33, D) said that the Republican effort to enter the secure area without authorization was

A Rose By Any Other Name

Read this and tell me what you think.

—//—

Oversight of the Report on the Investigation into County Interference in the 1996 Mayoral Election: Former Dedicated Prosecutor Richard S. Mabry, Jr.

Councilman Tommy Lawry (Westside):
Thank you Superintendent Mabry for your long history of service to our country, including your service as a Marine, where you earned the Bronze Star with a ‘V’ device. I’d like to now turn to the elements of Obstruction of Justice as applied to the mayor’s attempts to curtail your investigation. The first element of Obstruction of Justice requires and obstructive act. Correct?

Mr. Mabry: Correct.

Lawry: I’d like to direct you to page 97 of Volume 2 of your report, and you wrote there on page 97, quote “Sitter was being instructed to tell the Dedicated Prosecutor to end the existing investigation into the mayor and his campaign,” unquote. That’s in the report – correct?

Mabry: Correct

Lawry: That would be evidence of an obstructive act because it would naturally obstruct an investigation. Correct?

Mabry: Ah… correct.

Lawry: Let’s now turn to the second element of the crime of Obstruction of Justice which requires a nexus to the official proceeding. Again, I’m going to direct you to page 97 – the same page in Volume 2 – and you wrote, quote, “by the time the mayor’s initial one-on-one meeting with LaChance on June 19, 1987, the existence of a grand jury investigation by the Dedicated Prosecutor was public knowledge.” That’s in the report – correct?

Mabry: Correct.

Lawry: That would constitute evidence of a nexus to an official proceeding, because the grand jury investigation is an official proceeding… correct?

Mabry: Yes.

Lawry: I can now turn to the final element of the crime of obstruction of justice. On that same page – page 97 – do you see where there’s an intent section on that page? (unintelligible)

Mabry: Correct.

Lawry: Would you be willing to