Posted on 06/14/2024 12:26:42 PM PDT by 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.”
I have the formal training. Yes, the House can do it. Private individuals can’t get a writ to do it but the House or Senate can, they have standing and if granted it basically says do your danged job and enforce the law. Of course, Garland would use the BS defense of executive privilege, however executive privilege only applies if the executive was doing official job duties, and being interviewed by a special prosecutor is not an official job duty of the POTUS. Thus, No executive privilege applies. I have litigated executive privilege before at a highest state level. Governor did not want to be deposed in a case of reverse state contracting bid-rigging. Judge said no executive privilege applies, illegally interfering in state procurement matters is not an official job duty of a State governor.
Wonderful idea!
Because Trump didn’t yet know how to fight the Deep State. Or maybe all these years have been spent collecting the evidence needed to exterminate the Deep State.
Either way we need to get R majorities in House and Senate if at all possible - especially the House - so there will be criminal referrals for Trump’s AG from day one.
We’re never going to get our country back until the power of the Deep State to blackmail judges and legislators is gone.
In that case the House should negate the Bannon and Navarro convictions and sentence.
Garland: “I AM the law!”
Maybe they could sue in court as this is a Separation of Powers issue (I believe a court ordered Trump to turn over his tax returns by this same mechanism) - but this issue is effectively buried at least until next year which is the desired result. I think the only avenue Congress has is with the power of the purse or the enactment of law - which would have to be signed by the POTUS so it’s a non-starter even if it somehow did get pass the Senate.
But that doesn’t mean Trump can’t campaign on it. For openers “what are they trying to hide - first Hillary was bleaching her hard drives, now Biden is hiding his audio recordings” - of a transcript they already released, there should be no reason to bury the tapes unless the transcripts are forged, if the tapes reflect poorly on his ability to answer, or if he had someone reminding him of the answers. He’s got a legitimate beef here especially considering his Ukraine call transcript was illegally leaked. His advisors are going to jail for the same “crime” that the DOJ now says is a protected by Privilege. Biden gets to skate on his documents case while Trump is still facing a trial. And add that to the trials Trump has already faced and he’s got a strong campaign issue. There cannot be two types of justice.
Pass Ana Luna’s Articles of Inherent Contempt quietly and then subpoena Garland to answer somw supplemental questions. When he shows up, sic the Sergeant-at-Arms on him to drag downstairs to the holding cells.
On July 24, 1974, a unanimous Court (with Justice Rehnquist not taking part due to a prior role in the Nixon administration) ruled against the President. Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the President didn’t have an absolute, unqualified privilege to withhold information. Executive privilege is an absolute unqualified privilege. In other words, if Nixon had no executive privilege in his case, Biden has none in this case
Our entire federal cluster**** bureaucracy has subverted the constitution so badly they are just going thru the motions of playing govt as they betray us openly.
Agree.
The House has every right and duty to cage Garland.
Paging Claude Rains, Claude rains please pick up the white courtesy phone.
I believe the fact they provided the text of the audio opens the door to release of the audio. Hopefully, the House will fast track this to SCOTUS.
Rings hollow.
House R party - it’s SCOTUS time. SCOTUS - do your job!
So you are saying that Congress can issue a writ of mandamus, or that they can seek a writ from the courts?
If it is the former, than I stand corrected. If you are saying the latter, then that was what I suspected had to transpire.
As for the remainder of your comments, yes the fight only escalates from there.
My very initial comment was that the ground work was laid by securing the contempt of Congress charge, and that justice depends upon Trump winning, coupled with the Republican obtaining large majorities in both Houses of Congress to ensure impeachment first. Then, I had left this off, charges being brought by a Trump DoJ.
Unfortunately, they lost that power of the purse because they gave the Democrats everything they wanted. As for impeachment, we could impeach him, but most likely The House RINOs would stop it. If they did secure an impeachment. Then the Senate would never convict.
I suppose the rest of your statement would be viable. 🙂👍
They can seek a writ of mandamus, however it is DC, so the easier way, with much less chance of partisan interference from the court system itself, would be the Inherent Contempt route. Congress passes articles of inherent contempt then the Congressional Sergeant-at-Arms can take him into custody until the end of the congressional term
The democrats may grow to hate this tactic when Republicans get in power and turn it on them. Oh, the whaling of the liberals and the screeching of the media how it is fascist to do this...
all the while ignoring what they did to Trump and his supporters for the last 4 years.
Inherent contempt is a constitutional power of Congress to punish individuals who refuse to comply with its subpoenas or obstruct its investigations. This power is derived from the Constitution’s Article I, Section 5, which grants Congress the authority to “punish its members and other persons for disorderly behavior” during its proceedings.
History of Inherent Contempt
In the early years of the United States, Congress used its inherent contempt power to punish individuals who refused to comply with its subpoenas or obstruct its investigations. This power was exercised through a process known as “inherent contempt,” where the House or Senate would issue a contempt citation and then detain the individual in question until they complied with the subpoena or provided the requested information.
Modern Practice
In modern times, the inherent contempt power is rarely used, as Congress has instead relied on statutory contempt procedures to enforce its subpoenas. However, the power remains an important tool for Congress to ensure that its investigations are conducted effectively and that individuals comply with its subpoenas.
Examples of Inherent Contempt
There have been a few instances where Congress has exercised its inherent contempt power in recent years. For example, in 2022, the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack found Peter Navarro, a former White House adviser, in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena. Navarro was subsequently found guilty by a federal jury and sentenced to four months in prison.
Comparison to Statutory Contempt
Inherent contempt is different from statutory contempt, which is a process established by Congress through legislation. Statutory contempt is typically used to punish individuals who refuse to comply with a subpoena or obstruct an investigation, but it requires a formal process and can result in criminal penalties. Inherent contempt, on the other hand, is a more informal process that allows Congress to detain an individual and punish them directly.
Conclusion
Inherent contempt is a constitutional power of Congress that allows it to punish individuals who refuse to comply with its subpoenas or obstruct its investigations. While it is a rare occurrence, the power remains an important tool for Congress to ensure that its investigations are conducted effectively and that individuals comply with its subpoenas.
Thank you for your input. 🙂👍
Note: This was generated by AI, so I hope it got it right. 🤣
Rep. Ana Luna - Fla (R) has drawn up those Articles of Contempt already
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.