Reply to John Podesta's good friend Peter Kadzik is in charge of Clinton email probe at DOJ

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "John Podesta's good friend Peter Kadzik is in charge of Clinton email probe at DOJ"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]To the person who doesn't care:

It has now been revealed that Kadzik's wife (Amy Weiss) was Deputy Press Secretary to Bill Clinton in the White HOuse--the Clinton administration.

And, now her husband--Podesta's good buddy, who fed him backchannel information--is in charge of the DOJ investigation.  No, move along, nothing to see here.[/quote]

Haven’t been fond of this slogan, but here it rings true.... #DrainTheSwamp

[/quote]

You must be kidding. Kadzik is the Assistant AG for Legislative Affairs, so he is in charge of DOJ liaison to Congress, not in charge of the investigation.   He even says that the Civil Division representatives will be testifying on Capitol Hill.  He is NOT in charge of the investigation, but every agency has a liaison to Congress because they have oversight and budget responsibilities. That position, in any agency is almost always a political appointee.

But the investigation divisions?  There are many fine federal employees who serve our country in public service year after year, dealing with the ins and outs of whatever political party at the top of the pyramid. They are both good at their jobs and rarely pull punches.

Kadzik let Podesta know that emails of a former Administration official would likely be questioned by Congress.  This is no secret. Congress publishes a list of their hearings. But sometimes they come up fast. Congress actually tells agencies what they want to know in advance because want answers,  not we don't know.  Testimony is not some kind of "gotcha" moment.  That's not back channel to to tell a staffer (Podesta) that their principal (Clinton) will be discussed at a Congressional hearing.

There was a time when I once had to prepare a number of Republican nominees for their jobs.  I also asked the agency congressional liaison office to find out what particular issues/questions were of interest to members of Congress.  We passed that info onto the nominees so they could give their views clearly and concisely. This was to save time and to ensure important points were covered.

A debate is different.  In that situation, people want to see how you do "on the fly"  Telling someone that there is a public Congressional hearing scheduled in which they will be mentioned is not backchannel at all.

Don't all you Trump posters get tired of trying to live in a state of "perpetual outrage"? 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics