https://youtu.be/qs7J2myls_s

"I'm Serving You 2 Subpoenas Right Now" Jason Chaffetz Goes Berserk on ATF Administrator

you mean the ignorant clown that compared spending $7000 on health insurance to buying an iPhone???

The clown whose opponent raised $80K in just one day after that incident?

Maybe you should pick those you support with a bit more care.

https://youtu.be/4C9X3cmhNFQ

"You Gave 9,500 Visas To Terrorists" Jason Chaffetz Delivers The Best Roast Of His Life



post the references if you wish longie

https://youtu.be/Rm4-YyPo1Xk

"Trump Told Me To Investigate Whatever I Want" Jason Chaffetz Shocks Democrats

https://youtu.be/_yT33cd5mv4

"Are You Going To Fire Him?" Jason Chaffetz Explodes On TSA Director

and you are gullible enough to think that 9500 terrorists entered america and committed no actual acts of terrorism.


ARE YOU THAT STUPID?????

idiot.

https://youtu.be/xuujf0aIBA0

"Wow! You Won't Even Answer Yes Or No?" Jason Chaffetz Laughs At Idiotic Official

She should be fired.
If you can't say yes or no..............

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 5:20pm:

you mean the ignorant clown that compared spending $7000 on health insurance to buying an iPhone??? The clown whose opponent raised $80K in just one day after that incident? Maybe you should pick those you support with a bit more care.

But Sprint does, Longy. He finds them on YouTube.

Big Donger wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:20pm: you mean the ignorant clown that compared spending $7000 on health insurance to buying an iPhone??? The clown whose opponent raised $80K in just one day after that incident? Maybe you should pick those you support with a bit more care. But Sprint does, Longy. He finds them on YouTube.

Time for an update... this clown's Democrat opponent has now raised $400K.... in a week.  Does that sound a lot like a grass-roots rebellion??

:)

https://youtu.be/BulC2aVG0zo

Jason Chaffetz Makes FBI ADMIT That They Covered Up Hillary Clinton's LIES

longie - if you abuse people I won't answer.


use references as I do.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 5:53pm:

longie - if you abuse people I won't answer. use references as I do.

you use FAKE NEWS. there is no point in showing references or sources to a trumpoid - you reject EVERYTHING you dont like.

Your last video was just more edited FAKE NEWS.


use your head and how about access your ethics as well?

BOOM!!!!!!

Nice 👍🏻 sprint....

They have the crooks on the run and the forum stooges trying to cover their asses....

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 5:52pm:

https://youtu.be/BulC2aVG0zo Jason Chaffetz Makes FBI ADMIT That They Covered Up Hillary Clinton's LIES

you are a bloody idiot.  That stupid video makes ZERO REFERENCE to Hillary Clinton in any shape or form. What did you think? no one would bother to watch it and catch you in yet another of your transparent lies???

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 5:53pm:

longie - if you abuse people I won't answer. use references as I do.

But you don't answer, Sprint.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:03pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:52pm: https://youtu.be/BulC2aVG0zo Jason Chaffetz Makes FBI ADMIT That They Covered Up Hillary Clinton's LIES you are a bloody idiot.  That stupid video makes ZERO REFERENCE to Hillary Clinton in any shape or form. What did you think? no one would bother to watch it and catch you in yet another of your transparent lies???

Ah. Now you know why Sprint uses "references".

Big Donger wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:03pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:52pm: https://youtu.be/BulC2aVG0zo Jason Chaffetz Makes FBI ADMIT That They Covered Up Hillary Clinton's LIES you are a bloody idiot.  That stupid video makes ZERO REFERENCE to Hillary Clinton in any shape or form. What did you think? no one would bother to watch it and catch you in yet another of your transparent lies??? Ah. Now you know why Sprint uses "references".

Yes, so you can check it for yourself.

I believe Chattetz proved the FBI are withholding information.

at 3.30 to 3.50 , he issued a subpoena to get ALL the information.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:17pm:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:03pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:52pm: https://youtu.be/BulC2aVG0zo Jason Chaffetz Makes FBI ADMIT That They Covered Up Hillary Clinton's LIES you are a bloody idiot.  That stupid video makes ZERO REFERENCE to Hillary Clinton in any shape or form. What did you think? no one would bother to watch it and catch you in yet another of your transparent lies??? Ah. Now you know why Sprint uses "references". Yes, so you can check it for yourself. I believe Chattetz proved the FBI are withholding information. at 3.30 to 3.50 , he issued a subpoena to get ALL the information.

NO REFERENCE TO CLINTON..... LIAR

better choice of graphic...

---

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:17pm:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:03pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:52pm: https://youtu.be/BulC2aVG0zo Jason Chaffetz Makes FBI ADMIT That They Covered Up Hillary Clinton's LIES you are a bloody idiot.  That stupid video makes ZERO REFERENCE to Hillary Clinton in any shape or form. What did you think? no one would bother to watch it and catch you in yet another of your transparent lies??? Ah. Now you know why Sprint uses "references". Yes, so you can check it for yourself. I believe Chattetz proved the FBI are withholding information. at 3.30 to 3.50 , he issued a subpoena to get ALL the information.

You think no one's watching your "references", now don't you?

By the way, I think Chaffetz is doing a great job in these three minute clips.

The problem is, we don't get to see the rest of the hearings. We have no idea what Chaffetz is trying to find out, if it's relevant, or if he's just grandstanding.

Very eloquent grandstanding if he is.

No, we don't know if he is having a real effect.

He is the chairman of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and has the authority to write subpeonas.

Trump personally gave him encouragement to investigate everything he wants.

It will take some time for that committee to have any effect.

If he is grandstanding, that will be a great waste.

Big Donger wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:31pm:

By the way, I think Chaffetz is doing a great job in these three minute clips. The problem is, we don't get to see the rest of the hearings. We have no idea what Chaffetz is trying to find out, if it's relevant, or if he's just grandstanding. Very eloquent grandstanding if he is.

that's kinda the point. This clown is somehow asserting that Congress has UNLIMITED access to classified material which is actually not correct. There is plenty of information they are most certainly not authorised to collect. He was just a bully taking on a junior and unprepared FBI agent. Try it on Comey and see how it works out... :)

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:42pm:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:31pm: By the way, I think Chaffetz is doing a great job in these three minute clips. The problem is, we don't get to see the rest of the hearings. We have no idea what Chaffetz is trying to find out, if it's relevant, or if he's just grandstanding. Very eloquent grandstanding if he is. that's kinda the point. This clown is somehow asserting that Congress has UNLIMITED access to classified material which is actually not correct. There is plenty of information they are most certainly not authorised to collect. He was just a bully taking on a junior and unprepared FBI agent. Try it on Comey and see how it works out... :)

Your "junior FBI agent" is an acting Director. Chaffetz showed masterfully why he does have the right to collect ALL information.

I can see why the FBI would be reluctant to reveal the names of its own staff to a hostile committee, but it looks like they don't have that right.

Big Donger wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 7:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:42pm: Big Donger wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:31pm: By the way, I think Chaffetz is doing a great job in these three minute clips. The problem is, we don't get to see the rest of the hearings. We have no idea what Chaffetz is trying to find out, if it's relevant, or if he's just grandstanding. Very eloquent grandstanding if he is. that's kinda the point. This clown is somehow asserting that Congress has UNLIMITED access to classified material which is actually not correct. There is plenty of information they are most certainly not authorised to collect. He was just a bully taking on a junior and unprepared FBI agent. Try it on Comey and see how it works out... :) Your "junior FBI agent" is an acting Director. Chaffetz showed masterfully why he does have the right to collect ALL information. I can see why the FBI would be reluctant to reveal the names of its own staff to a hostile committee, but it looks like they don't have that right.

read up and learn. Congress does not have the unquestioned right to classified material. Te various committees have LEVELS of authority, but not to anything and everything they want. Teh PResident is the ONLY person with unquestioned security access.

I guess the subpoena will decide who has what right.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:14pm:

I guess the subpoena will decide who has what right.

you dont know much about law, do you? A subpoena does not entitle anyone to exceed their authority.

try and not act as stupid as this again. It is embarrassing for you.

https://youtu.be/Jx8050u95qY

"We're going to look hard on this", Jason Chaffetz on Wiretapping, "Notorious on this stuff"

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:26pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:14pm: I guess the subpoena will decide who has what right. you dont know much about law, do you? A subpoena does not entitle anyone to exceed their authority. try and not act as stupid as this again. It is embarrassing for you.

No, a supoena allows a court to call a witness, as Chaffetz did.

I liked his little deflection on Fox and Friends though - he was wiretapped by over 40 agents because he was hard on the Obama administration, but onto something else...

Chaffetz is a career politician who does what they do. He just does it well - in his starched little cuffs.

We all know he's a stooge for Trump, but this is the game, as everybody knows.

Quote:

...................Legislative investigating committees also issue subpoenas to compel recalcitrant witnesses to appear. Congressional investigations of political scandal, such as the Watergate scandals of the Nixon administration, the iran-contra scandal of the Reagan administration, and the Whitewater scandal of the Clinton administration, rely on subpoenas to obtain testimony. A subpoena that commands a person to bring certain evidence, usually documents or papers, is called a Subpoena Duces Tecum, from the Latin "under penalty to bring with you." This type of subpoena is often used in a civil lawsuit where one party resists giving the other party documents through the discovery process. If a court is convinced that the document request is legitimate, it will order the production of documents using a subpoena duces tecum...........

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subpoena

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 11:10pm:

Quote: ...................Legislative investigating committees also issue subpoenas to compel recalcitrant witnesses to appear. Congressional investigations of political scandal, such as the Watergate scandals of the Nixon administration, the iran-contra scandal of the Reagan administration, and the Whitewater scandal of the Clinton administration, rely on subpoenas to obtain testimony. A subpoena that commands a person to bring certain evidence, usually documents or papers, is called a Subpoena Duces Tecum, from the Latin "under penalty to bring with you." This type of subpoena is often used in a civil lawsuit where one party resists giving the other party documents through the discovery process. If a court is convinced that the document request is legitimate, it will order the production of documents using a subpoena duces tecum........... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subpoena

hey fool... did you see the word 'certain'?  It means that a subpoena cannot breach confidentiality or security clearances.

dope.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2017 at 8:49am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:10pm: Quote: ...................Legislative investigating committees also issue subpoenas to compel recalcitrant witnesses to appear. Congressional investigations of political scandal, such as the Watergate scandals of the Nixon administration, the iran-contra scandal of the Reagan administration, and the Whitewater scandal of the Clinton administration, rely on subpoenas to obtain testimony. A subpoena that commands a person to bring certain evidence, usually documents or papers, is called a Subpoena Duces Tecum, from the Latin "under penalty to bring with you." This type of subpoena is often used in a civil lawsuit where one party resists giving the other party documents through the discovery process. If a court is convinced that the document request is legitimate, it will order the production of documents using a subpoena duces tecum........... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subpoena hey fool... did you see the word 'certain'?  It means that a subpoena cannot breach confidentiality or security clearances. dope.

The FBI can't hide their employees' names from a congressional oversight committee. There is no "security" classification that covers this, as Chaffetz showed.

Big Donger wrote on Mar 13^th, 2017 at 10:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 13th, 2017 at 8:49am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:10pm: Quote: ...................Legislative investigating committees also issue subpoenas to compel recalcitrant witnesses to appear. Congressional investigations of political scandal, such as the Watergate scandals of the Nixon administration, the iran-contra scandal of the Reagan administration, and the Whitewater scandal of the Clinton administration, rely on subpoenas to obtain testimony. A subpoena that commands a person to bring certain evidence, usually documents or papers, is called a Subpoena Duces Tecum, from the Latin "under penalty to bring with you." This type of subpoena is often used in a civil lawsuit where one party resists giving the other party documents through the discovery process. If a court is convinced that the document request is legitimate, it will order the production of documents using a subpoena duces tecum........... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subpoena hey fool... did you see the word 'certain'?  It means that a subpoena cannot breach confidentiality or security clearances. dope. The FBI can't hide their employees' names from a congressional oversight committee. There is no "security" classification that covers this, as Chaffetz showed.

Chaffetz 'showed' nothing. He huffed and puffed an referred to the constitution while ignoring the body of law which covers this area.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2017 at 12:34pm:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 13th, 2017 at 10:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 13th, 2017 at 8:49am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:10pm: Quote: ...................Legislative investigating committees also issue subpoenas to compel recalcitrant witnesses to appear. Congressional investigations of political scandal, such as the Watergate scandals of the Nixon administration, the iran-contra scandal of the Reagan administration, and the Whitewater scandal of the Clinton administration, rely on subpoenas to obtain testimony. A subpoena that commands a person to bring certain evidence, usually documents or papers, is called a Subpoena Duces Tecum, from the Latin "under penalty to bring with you." This type of subpoena is often used in a civil lawsuit where one party resists giving the other party documents through the discovery process. If a court is convinced that the document request is legitimate, it will order the production of documents using a subpoena duces tecum........... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subpoena hey fool... did you see the word 'certain'?  It means that a subpoena cannot breach confidentiality or security clearances. dope. The FBI can't hide their employees' names from a congressional oversight committee. There is no "security" classification that covers this, as Chaffetz showed. Chaffetz 'showed' nothing. He huffed and puffed an referred to the constitution while ignoring the body of law which covers this area.

And yet, he issued his subpoena.

Big Donger wrote on Mar 13^th, 2017 at 12:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 13th, 2017 at 12:34pm: Big Donger wrote on Mar 13th, 2017 at 10:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 13th, 2017 at 8:49am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:10pm: Quote: ...................Legislative investigating committees also issue subpoenas to compel recalcitrant witnesses to appear. Congressional investigations of political scandal, such as the Watergate scandals of the Nixon administration, the iran-contra scandal of the Reagan administration, and the Whitewater scandal of the Clinton administration, rely on subpoenas to obtain testimony. A subpoena that commands a person to bring certain evidence, usually documents or papers, is called a Subpoena Duces Tecum, from the Latin "under penalty to bring with you." This type of subpoena is often used in a civil lawsuit where one party resists giving the other party documents through the discovery process. If a court is convinced that the document request is legitimate, it will order the production of documents using a subpoena duces tecum........... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subpoena hey fool... did you see the word 'certain'?  It means that a subpoena cannot breach confidentiality or security clearances. dope. The FBI can't hide their employees' names from a congressional oversight committee. There is no "security" classification that covers this, as Chaffetz showed. Chaffetz 'showed' nothing. He huffed and puffed an referred to the constitution while ignoring the body of law which covers this area. And yet, he issued his subpoena.

so? A subpoena does not entitle the issuer to exceed their authority. A lower court for example can issue all the subpoenas they want for information to which they are legally not entitled and they will NOT be honoured.  A subpoena is a legal demand for evidence and information to which the issuer is legally entitled and no more.

https://youtu.be/PILoP_ielMM

Jason Chaffetz Finds Out GSA Spent Millions On A Website That Doesn't Even Exist

He will be gone in 2018, Sprinty.