BREAKING: Biden DOJ Refuses to Prosecute AG Merrick Garland After Contempt of Congress.

National Pulse ^ | June 14, 2024 | WILLIAM UPTON

[Red Badger]

The Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) will not prosecute Attorney General Merrick Garland for contempt of Congress. In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson released late on Friday, the DOJ, overseen by the Attorney General, argued that the House Republican‘s contempt resolution does not preempt Joe Biden‘s assertion of executive privilege regarding audio records of two interviews he sat for with special counsel Robert Hur. Garland was held in contempt for refusing to furnish the recordings to Congress.“The longstanding position of the Department is that we will not prosecute an official for contempt of Congress for declining to provide subpoenaed information subject to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” the letter, authored by Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte reads. He adds: “Across administrations of both political parties, we have consistently adhered to the position that ‘the contempt of Congress statute was not intended to apply and could not constitutionally be applied to an Executive Branch official who asserts the President’s claim of executive privilege.'”

WHAT ABOUT BANNON & NAVARRO?

Despite Uriarte’s claim, this precedent was not extended to Dr. Peter Navarro or Stephen K. Bannon, both sentenced to jail time due to a congressional contempt charge made by the hyper-partisan January 6th committee, which fabricated information and mass-deleted evidence. Meanwhile, Garland has publicly and dubiously argued that “Releasing the audio would chill cooperation with the department in future investigations, and it could influence witnesses’ answers if they thought the audio of their law enforcement interviews would be broadcast to Congress and the public.”The DOJ letter concludes: “…the Department has determined that the responses by Attorney General Garland to the subpoenas issued by the Committees did not constitute a crime, and accordingly… will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General.”

[Robert DeLong]

Yeah, I am not so sure that is true. But if you can provide me with something from the Constitution that proves the Speaker does have that power, I will change my position. I wish it were true, but I have never seen The Speaker of the House ever using that authority, especially upon a political opponent.

But I could be wrong, and in fact hope I am wrong.

[TBP]

Get him to come over and testify, then lock him up for contempt.

[TBP]

Or invite him to meet with a couple of members.

[Bullish]

No man is above the law.

Has a nice ring to it... Too bad it's meaningless now.

[dznutz]

Well, this was certainly not unexpected. However, if Trump wins, and the people put Republicans in charge of both Houses of Congress, then justice will eventually be served. This was just laying the groundwork for the future. Sometimes that is just the realities you have to work in. If the Republicans even get both Houses of Congress, than he can be impeached on day 1 of the new Congress, because the contempt charge has already been established.

We thought that last time after we gave them both houses and the Presidency, after which we were japped by the RINO’s.

[TexasFreeper2009]

two standards of justice, one for liberals and one for conservatives!

[Robert DeLong]

A mandamus is a writ issued by a superior court commanding the performance of a specified official act or duty.

So, I 'm not sure that can be done by the House either. But since I have no formal training, or even informal training for that matter, I may again be wrong, and would be perfectly happy to be wrong here also.

[uranium penguin]

So, then might as well drop ANY cases against Trump while he was in office citing Ex privildge then, right?

is that how it works?

[Robert DeLong]

That's a valid point, but there have been significant changes that have taken place since those first two years of Trump's first term.

So, that means that we just might get a different result this time around. If we get likeminded people then you statement will probably carry mor weight as being correct.

But we all still have better chances, even if some have to vote in people they personally do not like. There will still be differences in the people makeup, as many of those ho fought hard against Trump have already walked away, or are walking away.

That is one reason, that people should also take primary elections more seriously as well, because that is the opportunity to replace some of the lousy incompetent incumbents, with new faces and different priorities.

Down ballot voting is important, and it's important that you party is put into power. It's also important that we the people that put them their, hold their feet to the fire. once they are there.

We didn't do that on Trump's first term. we relied upon him to do it all. Shame on us.

[logi_cal869]

I hope in a few months we can smile about the shoe soon being on the other foot...

[Kevin in California]

So says Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte. Wonder what country this POS came from.

[Boomer]

We no longer have a function US government. What once was is gone. All that’s left is a burnt scarred heap of corrupt dung.

Lady Justice died.

[Jane Long]

This Merrick decision should qualify Bannon for an instant injunction.

🤬🤬

[Red Badger]

Cuba?...................

[Robert DeLong]

Not sure what you are trying to say, but they didn't charge Trump during his presidency, they charged him only after he announced he was running again.

But whatever you are trying to say has no bearing on this issue of mandamus. As I stated a mandamus is a writ issued by a superior court commanding the performance of a specified official act or duty.

Congress is not a court, they could petition a court to issue the mandamus I suspect, but I'm not certain about that. But suing the DoJ, is probable not a wise avenue to even pursue. Do you think DoJ would provide a desired result?

[aklurker]

Laws, like morals, only apply to republicans don’t ya know...

[thegagline]

Exactly. Congress could hold Garland in civil contempt. The prosecution would occur in the Senate (see 2 USC 288)

The second option is sending out the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Garland.

[Ciaphas Cain]

Maybe we should move the nation's capital. Further away from the urban areas of the east coast and to somewhere in the American heartland.

Kansas or Nebraska would be nice.

[Savage Rider]

I would like to see some discussion of how the tapes were procured from Nixon when he claimed executive privilege, separation of powers and national security.

[drypowder]

In your face Congress!! What are you going to do about it?