Does congress or the FBI have more power to control the government? If you believe congress, how can the FBI ignore a congressional subpoena?

[Adaeva]

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3999710-fbi-declines-gop-subpoena-for-unverified-document-republicans-say-alleges-biden-scheme/

FBI declines GOP subpoena on Biden ‘alleged criminal scheme’

[BeMuse]

Congress makes law. The FBI are criminals, so they don't really care about the law. They do their own thing. That is why the people have to strip the administrative state of their ability to operate. Technically Congress can do this as well. All they have to do is set the FBI budget to $0 and watch them fall to their knees.

[BeMuse]

The problem you have with Congress though, is that many of them are also criminals that are in league with the FBI so they aren't against the FBI... They are on the same team...

[Adaeva]

Cutting their budget by 25% with the threat that next time they would cut it another 50% would do it because that would send a strong message that they obey congress or else.

[BeMuse]

No just eliminate their budget all together. The FBI shouldn't exist.

[BeMuse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YPBHBdfEwM

[Billlewis]

Because all of our governmental agencies are in bed with the Dems. It's a double standard, a two-tiered justice system. The closest thing to it, according to many, is the old Soviet Union ((1917-1991).

[loveslongnails]

" ... Because all of our governmental agencies are in bed with the Dems." LMAO... which explains why so few Republican lawmakers responded to Congressional subpoenas. Brilliant. LOL
If the Dems totally controlled the FBI, DOJ and the Archives, Trump would be in jail for life already. Get real.

[abc3643]

This is a very good question and I think it goes to a fundamental flaw in our Republic.

Congress has the power to subpoena, but the execution of the laws lies with the Executive Branch. The FBI is in the Executive Branch under the Department of Justice (it used to be under the Department of Treasury.)

Unfortunately, Congress is a bit political so these subpoenas are sometimes a form of badgering and that's one reason why Congressional subpoenas are ignored by lose who may have the legal authority to ignore them (and that may be the case with whatever subpoena you are talking about).

Having read the article from The Hill (I am glad you are using a respected source) that you proved, this is one of the examples of a political... well, I hate to say it... "witch hunt" or "fishing expedition".

The FBI is not blowing off the subpoena, per se, but they are being formal in requesting to coördinate how to fulfill the request in the subpoena. If you read carefully the reply from the FBI, there are issues of national security and separation of powers, so it might not be appropriate or even legal to provide all requested documents. Expect the judicial system to get involved if the Oversight Committee gets pissed off.

============

Back to the abstract idea of Congressional subpoenas having teeth, there are a few ways this might be addressed but I must dwell on this.

[abc3643]

FYI to most of the other opinionators out there...
[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[Chapter 17. Contempt]
[From the U. S. Government Publishing Office,

www.govinfo.gov/.../GPO-HPRACTICE-112-18.htm

[monorprise]

@abc3643
Even if Congress effectively subordinates the FBI, they would still not make said organization even remotely accountable. For congress to act at all requires a majority both popularly and regionally, as well as the consent of the man who gives the FBI their orders.

This majority requires that the people are both aware and primary concerned with the conduct or misconduct of the FBI. Given the FBI is a domestic Law enforcement organization who's printable target are individuals.

Those individuals and their situation would somehow have to be consistently known to a electoral y majority for congress and the president to regularly care.
At the local level in a small enough area where word of mouth travels and people know each-other, among a goverment that focuses upon such domestic issues, this is possible.

At the federal level where your dealing with hundreds of millions of people most of whom are thousands of miles away from one anther with no relation or uncontrolled contract at all. In elections consistently held on very different topics of real concern to the rest of the population. This is basically impossible.

As a result a 'federal' law enforcement organization is largely and unavoidably unaccountable.

this is the reason the Federal Constitution does not provide for one having much if any powers within the states.

[Anonymous]

The fact is the U. S. Constitution of 1787 never provided for a domestic Law enforcement origination like the FBI on the federal level for a good reason.

As an institution the Federal goverment is very poorly suited to manage the inherently dangerous domestic powers of a law enforcement organization.

This is because the Federal goverment as an institution is:

A) Being Contentment wide domestic acts against individuals are invariably very distant from the eyes and ears of the voting majority.

Meaning its basically impossible for most voters to ever know what they are doing.

B) The Federal Goverment by design is institutionally unwieldy (due to checks & balances).

Meaning a significant majority is required to address any issues. This leaves the executive unaccountable on any issue that don't effect such majorities.

C) focused on entirely different forign objects.

As an institution we only have elections every 4-6 years for 3 people. Theses votes ultimately have to be cast on the account of only 1 issues that means the issues of greatest concern to the majority will always take priority over minor issues effecting only a tiny or localized minority. So even if we could know honestly about the FBI's abuses it almost wouldn't matter. People are still going to almost always cast their vote on the matters of War & peace which effect them.

[Avicenna]

Congress has largely abandoned its oversight responsibilities, especially regarding the surveillance state, leaks, and government censorship, so now that some effort is being made by House Republicans to reassert it, obviously the agencies who have benefited and come to expect that lack of oversight do not like it.

The FBI's power comes from its ability to investigate (or avoid investigating) and to leak information. That power has been abused, and the FBI is far from unique in this regard.

[PeanutbutterAnd]

McCarthy is part of it. There’s no reason in hell, Biden shouldn’t have been impeached by now.
We are headed towards communism, and as usual, it won't work.

[Avicenna]

@PeanutbutterAnd: We are indeed well on the path to Communism and you are correct that traitors Biden and Mayorkas have committed multiple impeachable offenses.

[PeanutbutterAnd]

Joe Biden went to Ireland for four days. When he returned, he forgot what country he was just in.
This is the guy who plays a role in the nuclear codes. He forgets who his wife is. But the retards on this site don't care.
We are on the verge of a nuclear war, and dorks only care about who Trump had sex with.
How does that affect any of us? Who gives a shit? I've never understood that.

[Soteris]

The Congress IS the government and the reason the FBI can deny them is because the GOP subpoena is not backed by a majority vote in congress and as such does not carry the weight of the government behind it. As such the FBI has the ability to do their job as outlined by congress itself and refuse on various grounds such as how it would interfere in ongoing investigations or whatever.

If this subpoena passed a congressional majority vote then the FBI would be compelled to comply which is different from just a handful of politicians playing a political game.

[Avicenna]

You're (unsurprisingly) wrong:

law.stackexchange.com/.../does-the-house-of-representatives-need-a-full-house-vote-to-authorize-a-subpoena

[Soteris]

@Avicenna First of all, you are quoting a house rule which is not applicable in congress. Separate entity. Secondly, they did authorize a subpoena and sent it but the FBI has special protections and powers as well so unless you have a full vote on it they can argue their case for ignoring it. So yeah, eat shit.

[Avicenna]

Feel free to provide a source to back up your claims. Until then, you're just talking out of your ass (as usual). Do you know how stupid you look by claiming "it's a House rule which is not applicable in Congress"?

You clearly don't understand what you're talking about and substitute arrogance for any facts.

www.congress.gov/.../4010

And the Supreme Court has ruled regarding the legal validity of Congressional subpoenas. Did they say the Constitution requires a vote of both houses of Congress? Of course not.

[Soteris]

@Avicenna What do you want? Its a house rule, more specifically: House Rule XI (m), p. 19

It is a rule set by the house of representatives for themselves. It has nothing to do with Congress which is an entirely different government entity.

Also worth pointing out that house rules are not actually legally binding. They are basically gentlemen agreements established within the house itself that they "promise" to adhere to.

You also literally just linked a congressional bill that proves agencies such as FBI has special powers to refuse to comply with handing over documents and to testify. More specifically this:
"to provide a privilege log containing certain information about records that are withheld, such as the type of record and the legal basis for withholding it."

Thank you for playing yourself. Have a good evening.

[Avicenna]

The bill would have codified penalties for non-compliance. Codifying in law is stronger than a Supreme Court ruling, and the SCOTUS has found that subpoena power is implicit for Congress.

So you've misrepresented it (no surprise there). Privilege logs have been around for some time when an individual or agency is claiming documents or other information are privileged (i. e., should not be handed over)- they do not have to be codified in law. You falsely claimed that both houses of Congress had to vote to authorize a subpoena, which is not true.

So despite all the usual trash talking, you show once again that you don't know what you're talking about and try to cover it up with bluster and sophistry.

[Soteris]

@Avicenna I have said that Congress has to vote to overrule the protections given to the FBI to refuse to hand over documents on legal grounds. Such a vote goes above and beyond a normal subpoena and as such is not limited to the same degree. Which is entirely consistent with the links you have provided.

You on the other hand have displayed a complete lack of understanding on the topic and has on multiple times confused the house of representatives, congress and also had no idea what a house rule is when YOU YOURSELF LINKED IT and probably thought it was some kind of made up precedent or whatever etc..

Point remains. You are not going to get shit from the FBI unless you have a congressional vote that forces them.

[exitseven]

It is the DOJ that has the ability to arrest people. Apparently congress can issue subpoenas but cannot arrest anyone that fails to comply. FBI director Christopher Wray has refuses to give James Comer the documents from the chinese that show payments to Hunter Biden. The FBI is part of the DOJ and since this is a clear conflict of interest I don't know how this can be resolved. Those documents could be the end of the Biden crime family so they need to be covered up. It might have to wait until after the 2024 election and hopefully Biden will be voted out of office and a new president can start the arrest proceedings and a thorough investigation that will end in arrests to the Bidens and their co-conspirators.

[BCA6010]

The FBI doesn't control squat; it's a lapdog agency led by unelected commissars with their faces thoroughly buried up the ass of the political establishment class.

The only agency in the US that has the power and a track record of telling the federal government to pound sand is the CIA, which is proving to be a very big problem.

[jshm2]

Congress has more power. But the FBI has the power to ignore bullshit.

Just remember Trump and his "lock her up" malarkey, about Hillary. He couldn't even bring something to court with the judges he elected!

FBI knows when government is just clowning and grandstanding.

[Anonymous]

Congress has the power to subpoena but has no enforcement power. The executive branch was given that authority and the DOJ isn’t going to prosecute itself for non-compliance.

[Anonymous]

The FBI and others like the IRS work now for the democrat party.

[Exterminatore]

The FBI is full of political appointees and subversionists.

[LiamJHayden]

Congress should, but so much power has been transferred to the executive that in practice executive Departments and agencies have more.

[Anonymous]

McCarthy ignored his subpoena so it sounds like he set the precedent for how important he feels they are.

[John_Doesnt]

Because Jesus isn't real and Donald lost the election.

[KrakenAttackin]

An excellent question. The Attorney General should step in, but we all know he won't.

[msc545]

Congress, but your conclusion is a false equivalence.

[Jennz6]

I’m not really sure

[slatyb]

They have not ignored it. They have responded.

[jimmy2]

The DOJ, FBI are weaponnozine against Maga