Rosenstein ,apparently, believes that being expected to submit to Congressinal oversight, and HONOR Congressional subpoenaes, under threat of this own removal from office = extortion.
He also claims that there is no "Consitutional basis" for Congressional oversight, while claiming to "support oversight".
More Obama Swamp KGB-FBI/DOJ ARROGANT, leftover nonsense. He needs to GO, ASAP:
Rosenstein: 'We Strongly Support Appropriate Congressional Oversight,' But DOJ Will Not Be 'Extorted'
(CNSNews.com) - In a Q-and-A session at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein -- the man overseeing the secret Robert Mueller investigation -- was asked how the Justice Department balances the need for confidential investigations with congressional requests for information about those investigations.
"Funny you should ask that question," Rosenstein replied. He said the Justice Department supports "appropriate" oversight but will not be "extorted."
Rosenstein raised what he called an "interesting historical point," saying, "There's actually not a constitutional basis for oversight. That's something that's been viewed as sort of an implied power, and has developed over the years."
He noted that there have been conflicts between the Executive and Legislative branches regarding oversight throughout history:
"You know, I've been in the department for almost 30 years. Going back hundreds of years, these conflicts have arisen," Rosenstein said.
There's a lot of talk about FISA applications. And many people that I -- I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application -- a FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit, signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct, to the best of his knowledge and belief.
And that's the way we operate. And, if it's wrong -- sometimes it is -- if you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences. Sometimes, there are innocent errors. But, if not, you can face discipline or potentially even prosecution.
In response to Rosenstein's comments, Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, tweeted on Tuesday: "If he believes being asked to do his job is ‘extortion,’ then Rod Rosenstein should step aside and allow us to find a new Deputy Attorney General—preferably one who is interested in transparency."
Conservative Republicans have criticized Rod Rosenstein for appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel without evidence that any crime was commited; and they note that Rosenstein signed some of the FISA renewal applications for surveillance on Carter Page, a volunteer adviser with the Trump campaign.
Republicans want to see those FISA applications, which reportedly used opposition research, paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as the basis for surveilling Carter Page.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...-appropriate-congressional-oversight-doj-will
For Rosenstein's information:
Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.
Oversight is an implied rather than an enumerated power under the U.S. Constitution.[2] The government's charter does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the executive, to have access to records or materials held by the executive, or to issue subpoenas for documents or testimony from the executive.
There was little discussion of the power to oversee, review, or investigate executive activity at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or later in The Federalist Papers, which argued in favor of ratification of the Constitution. The lack of debate was because oversight and its attendant authority were seen as an inherent power of representative assemblies which enacted public law.[3]
Oversight also derives from the many and varied express powers of the Congress in the Constitution. It is implied in the legislature's authority, among other powers and duties, to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent.
The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed the oversight powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties, on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the Court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress was considering a subject "on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit".[4]
If Congress believes that an agency has drifted from its original mandate, Congress can respond in a number of ways. Congress can pass a law to overrule agency decisions,
or to narrow the agency's jurisdiction. Congress can use its appropriations power to restrict the agency's funding. Congress can also narrow the agency's regulatory authority
Think again, Rod.