╌>

Merrick Garland Held In Contempt Of Congress

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  50 comments

By:   Sara Dorn (Forbes)

Merrick Garland Held In Contempt Of Congress
Garland is now the third attorney general in the past 12 years to be held in contempt of Congress.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Topline


The House voted Wednesday to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress over his refusal to turn over audio tapes of President Joe Biden—a toothless yet highly partisan move as House Republicans have repeatedly attacked the Justice Department in a show of allegiance to former President Donald Trump.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is now the third attorney general in the past 12 years to be held ... [+] in contempt of Congress.

Getty Images

Key Facts


The House voted 216-207 to hold Garland in contempt, multipleoutlets reported, with just one Republican and 206 Democrats voting against the resolution.

The resolution stems from Garland's refusal to release the tapes of Special Counsel Robert Hur's interview with Biden in the DOJ's investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents — the interview that led Hur to publicly describe Biden as an "elderly man with a poor memory."

The DOJ instead released the full transcript of the interview, but declined Republicans' request for the audio tapes, citing the potential to deter cooperation from future witnesses, while Democrats have accused the GOP of wanting the tapes so they can be used in campaign ads against Biden.

The Biden administration asserted executive privilege over the recorded interviews last month, superseding the Justice Department's authority over the tapes.

Garland is unlikely to face real consequences from Wednesday's House vote, which refers him to the Justice Department for prosecution—a recommendation the agency rarely follows up on, especially for cabinet members.

The contempt vote comes as the DOJ has faced relentless attacks from Trump and his allies in Congress, including threats to defund the agency, as it prosecutes Trump on charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents after leaving office.

Chief Critic


Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio—the only Republican who voted against holding Garland in contempt—said in a statement: "I cannot in good conscience support a resolution that would further politicize our judicial system to score political points. The American people expect Congress to work for them, solve policy problems, and prioritize good governance. Enough is enough."

Surprising Fact


Since 2008, Congress has held 10 people in contempt of Congress, including former Attorney Generals Eric Holder and William Barr, but the Justice Department has only indicted two of them: former Trump White House advisers Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, who were convicted for refusing to comply with the House Jan. 6 committee's probe.

Key Background


Hur declined to prosecute Biden after classified documents dating back to his time as vice president and as a U.S. senator were found in his Washington, D.C. office and home in Delaware in 2022 and early last year. Hur found that Biden "willfully" retained about 50 classified documents, but could not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he wrote in a report detailing the investigation. Hur also raised questions about Biden's mental fitness in the report, exacerbating concerns he is too old to serve as president. Biden could present himself to a jury as a "sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory," Hur wrote, noting that Biden had to be reminded by his lawyers of key dates in the interview.

Tangent


Previous presidents, including Trump, have also declared executive authority to successfully shield cabinet members from contempt of Congress prosecutions. Minutes before the House voted to hold Barr and former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt for refusing to release documents related to a citizenship question the Trump administration attempted to include on the 2020 census, Trump asserted executive privilege over the documents. Former President Barack Obama also declared executive privilege over documents related to a Justice Department gunwalking probe. The Justice Department has a longstanding position of declining to prosecute individuals for contempt of Congress who have been acting under executive authority.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

How embarrassing for Biden can that audio tape be?

Garland got what he deserved.



 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2  Greg Jones    one month ago

Old hiden' Biden! It must be really bad, as if the daily parade of video clips isn't enough evidence of his dementia.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @2    one month ago

They gave us the transcript, but the American people are not allowed to hear what it sounded like?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3  MrFrost    one month ago

So? Doesn't mean anything at all. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3    one month ago
Doesn't mean anything at all. 

It means that Garland is above the law.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one month ago

It means that Garland is above the law.

Just like Jim Jordan. Oh well, deal with it. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one month ago

Garland is Attorney General of the United States of America! 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @3.1.2    one month ago

Lol and he isn't going to prosecute himself.

He now has an asterisk next to his name: HELD IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    one month ago

No Jordan wasn’t.

but Jordan and garland are both extreme partisans so I see why you are so eager to equate the two.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    one month ago
He now has an asterisk next to his name:

HELD IN CONTEMPT OF A REACTIONARY, DO-NOTHING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

He should be congratulated.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.4    one month ago
No Jordan wasn’t.

Jordan has been under congressional subpoena for over 2 years. He ignored it. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.6    one month ago

You claimed Jordan was found in contempt of congress . He wasn’t

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.7    one month ago
You claimed Jordan was found in contempt of congress

He did not make that claim anywhere in this thread or as a comment in this seeded article.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.6    one month ago

Gee, the Democrats should jump right on that, huh?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.7    4 weeks ago
You claimed Jordan was found in contempt of congress . He wasn’t

No, I didn't. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @3    one month ago

correct, totally meaningless coming from the gqp

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

As the whistleblower testimony made clear, the guy is just a partisan hack.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5  Gsquared    one month ago

Most Americans hold this House of Representatives in contempt.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @5    one month ago

True.  They're extremely contemptuous

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
5.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gsquared @5    one month ago

Nothing new, Congressional approval ratings have been low for 50 years.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @5    one month ago

I meant to say contemptible!!!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
5.3.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @5.3    one month ago

Semantics, no bid deal but thanks for clarifying.  Some here would LoL, but I won’t.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @5.3    one month ago

actually both and there's many more nasty adjectives to describe such nasty folk

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.3.3  Gsquared  replied to  Tessylo @5.3    one month ago

I think we agree that they are contemptuous and contemptible.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
5.3.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @5.3.2    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6  Texan1211    one month ago

Just covering for Biden.

Again.

And again.

Pitiful that they are afraid to release the tapes.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7  CB    one month ago

It does not matter. The entirety of the political sphere is upside down now. History will look back on all this political warfare and 'butchery" of otherwise decent professionals dumb and unhelpful.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1  Split Personality  replied to  CB @7    one month ago
It does not matter.

Correct, Garland will just smile and go about his job.

The entirety of the political sphere is upside down now. History will look back on all this political warfare and 'butchery" of otherwise decent professionals dumb and unhelpful.

Maybe. bad behavior seems to come and go in cycles.  Members of Congree don't beat each other with fists or canes anymore; hasn't been a duel between Senators since 1859.

Much of the frustration was released during the Civil War but bad feelings quickly returned, just not murderous ones.

What's "Dumb and unhelpful" in Latin? 

probably  "Mutum et Blattis"  would look good in stone above the House chamber these days.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.1  CB  replied to  Split Personality @7.1    one month ago

Yes, but this belligerent is going somewhere with intent to happen. My spirit of discernment sees words like: Stand; Takeover; Unrelenting. Unforgiving; Irreconcilable; Divorce; Guns; Civil War. 

If/when you look at the people creating despairing political storms out of whole cloth; the disinformation told with cool confidence, and observe that this has an end somewhere in the future. . . a clash of U.S. civilization is ahead. We're peddle to the metal racing toward it now. The irresistible force, unless finding an off-ramp*, is oriented on the immovable object. 

* The upcoming young folks present and future may serve as such. Today's adults are locked in heated Conflict.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
7.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @7.1    4 weeks ago

Garland had better pray Trump doesn't win.

Contempt of Congress charges don't end just because there is an election.

As Garland has proved administration officials can be charged with contempt of Congress even after they are no longer acting members.

I suppose Biden could issue the largest blanket pardon ever; but it will be challenged in court. Especially if it involves those that haven't had criminal charges even filed against them yet.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @7.1.2    4 weeks ago
Contempt of Congress charges don't end just because there is an election.

As evidenced by Holder & Barr?  Contempt charges wont go anywhere because to do so would challenge the declared Executive Privilege of the current POTUS, do you really think any future POTUS wants that, especially Mr. Trump?

No one in their right mind wants the Soviet style government of retribution promised daily by one candidate.

I suppose Biden could issue the largest blanket pardon ever; but it will be challenged in court.

Of course it would, all the way to SCOTUS.  Do you think it would be bigger than the pardons Lincoln granted the South?

Especially if it involves those that haven't had criminal charges even filed against them yet.

But it was such a great idea when Trump wanted to do it, wasn't it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.3    4 weeks ago

it makes no sense now or ever to declare privilege over an audio tape when the transcript isn't covered.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.5  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.4    4 weeks ago

It does make sense, if the sitting president does not want to give Donald, the big mouth, video to chop/clip into ads. Being the opportunist Donald is he would show ads of people on urinals self-servingly. Incidentally, he may have done similarly or worse to the republican house members and senators. . .in order to keep them trained.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  CB @7.1.5    4 weeks ago
does make sense, if the sitting president does not want to give Donald, the big mouth, video to chop/clip into ads.

Ridiculous nonsense steeped deeply in conspiracy nonsense and a whole lot of maybe, perhaps, and what ifs.

I ain't buying it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.7  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    4 weeks ago

Oh well, you're not buying it. Oh my word! I'm destroyed. /s

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.3    4 weeks ago
empt charges wont go anywhere because to do so would challenge the declared Executive Privilege of the current POTUS

It's amazing to watch people who claim to be so afraid of another Trump term defend giving him even more power because to do otherwise would make Biden look bad. "Better the executive abuse power than let people see what the President looks like answering unscripted  questions!" The very definition of "we had to burn the village to save it." 

n their right mind wants the Soviet style government of retribution 

The irony here is off the charts.  Even the house organ of the Democratic Party reports that the Democratic Prosecutor issued an edict to his prosecutors and the federal justice  official he brought on "to find a crime to charge Trump with," the very embodiment of Beria's "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" approach to political justice. 

 it was such a great idea when Trump wanted to do it, wasn't it

Except Trump observed the norms of not criminally charging political opponents.  Of course, now that Democrats torched that norm, I doubt he'd be so restrained should he be elected again. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  CB @7.1.7    4 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1.10  Split Personality  replied to  CB @7.1.5    4 weeks ago
It does make sense, if the sitting president does not want to give Donald, the big mouth, video to chop/clip into ads.

That could very well be.

Maybe he just wants it for his eventual library

or judging from some other Presidential audio tapes vs the transcripts, he learned something from Trump's experiences and just doesn't need more BS about his stammer.

An audio only tape without video is just an invitation for the imaginations of his detractors to run wild

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.11  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.8    4 weeks ago

McConnell: Trump 'morally responsible' for Capitol riot

"We have a criminal justice system in this country, we have civil litigation. and former president s  are not immune from either one." — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

There is your '1' and your '2' and your '3' (presidents, plural). Enjoy!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.12  CB  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.10    4 weeks ago

Even if it was offered to the congress confidentially, some MAGAs can't be trusted. They would lie about not leaking it if they could see it, and then leak it to the media (that is also funky for the tape) and then make copies and chop it up for short clips they could tactically 'slow-mo' for an even 'greater' (worse) effect.

I say don't give them a damn thing more. F-ing  some MAGAs deceivers. Ugh.

Of course, Donald, the big mouth, would demand a copy for his own purposes. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  CB @7.1.12    4 weeks ago

All they would need to do is release copies to Congress and the press at the same time.

Unless you think CNN or MSMBC would doctor the audio.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.8    4 weeks ago

Lets call every post civil war administration  the status quo except the Trump Admin.

I would rather have the status quo.

To date Bidens A team turnover is %71 percent and the Cabinet turnover is only 13%.

Very stable.

Brooking is very generous when it comes to Trump. They list the turnover of the original A Team

 at 92% of the original people and they stop counting past the first replacement but admit that 45% of the positions suffered from serial turnover 4 Chiefs of Staff, 5 Deputy CoS, 6 Communications Directors etc.

 Ditto they avoid listing that 100% of Trumps cabinet picks "of all of the best people" were replaced 

many, many times over.

In the service that would be described as a cluster fuck

Except Trump observed the norms of not criminally charging political opponents.

Because first Sessions, then Barr had backbones and refused Trump's nonsense, Rosen, Demers and Wilkinson could not help a lame duck president.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.15  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.13    4 weeks ago

Texan1211, If its up to me I would not release s-h-i-t to congress, the media, or the house and senate 'jesters' standing in the hall. . . .Some MAGAs are full of guile. Give them nothing and send their butts packing.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  CB @7.1.15    4 weeks ago

lucky for all, it isn't up to you.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.17  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.16    4 weeks ago

It ain't up to you, either. So there you go! No Biden video for MAGAs!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  CB @7.1.17    4 weeks ago

I never claimed i could decide.

So, nothing for the general public to see and hear regarding the President's condition, keep voters in the dark!

Classy!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.19  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.18    4 weeks ago

If the president has a 'condition' it is for his medical staff (HIPPA regulations) to study, examine, and behold. Its not for MAGAs and their bogus medical operatives who will do their damndest to dissect it and politically 'rape' him of his dignity (if possible).

And lets me be clear(er): If Biden is on a video scaling a tall building, lifting 'x' pounds of weight, speaking at a rapid fire pace. . . in other words, all is good: MAGAs might want to 'buy' that video, but only so as to bury it from ever being made public!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
7.1.20  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.8    4 weeks ago

Except Trump observed the norms of not criminally charging political opponents.  Of course, now that Democrats torched that norm, I doubt he'd be so restrained should he be elected again. 

Well don't forget, the VP can nullify the election and appoint the winner. Just like trump said they can. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.21  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.8    4 weeks ago
Except Trump observed the norms of not criminally charging political opponents.  Of course, now that Democrats torched that norm, I doubt he'd be so restrained should he be elected again. 

Except. Donald did have reason to be charged and convicted civilly and criminally. In order for Donald to have a case in court he will need some proof/s to be reported,  indicted on,  presented by prosecutors, defended by attorneys, and lastly examined by a Judge and/or jury. 

You can't come into a court of law with frivolous, unprepared, UNDER-prepared, manic paperwork and documents! In court one must have their. . . stuff. . .together or go/get sent packing, lightly with the judge hurting the unready accuser's feelings.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
8  Thrawn 31    4 weeks ago

Who cares? Some of the same reps who busted to hold him in contempt are the very same who told the world that being in contempt of congress doesn’t mean shit.

 
 

Who is online








31 visitors