Posted on 04/25/2024 10:06:36 PM PDT by Libloather
The Justice Department notified Congress on Thursday that it will not comply with a subpoena for audio recordings of President Biden’s interview with former Special Counsel Robert Hur.
In an 11-page letter, Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte rejected claims from House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) that the recordings contain information relevant to the Republican-led impeachment inquiry into the 81-year-old president.
Jordan and Comer have threatened to launch contempt proceedings against Attorney General Merrick Garland if the DOJ does comply with the subpoena.
Uriarte argued that the DOJ has complied, by releasing transcripts of Hur’s interview with Biden and other documents related to the federal investigation into the president’s handling of classified documents.
He called the contempt threats “unjustifiable,” defending the DOJ’s cooperation with the impeachment inquiry committees as “widespread, thorough, and consistent.”
“If the Committees’ goal is to receive information from the Department in furtherance of your investigations, that goal has been more than met,” Uriarte wrote. “Our cooperation has been extraordinary.”
“The Committees have not responded in kind,” he continued. “It seems that the more information you receive, the less satisfied you are, and the less justification you have for contempt, the more you rush towards it.”
The DOJ official charged the Judiciary and Oversight committees with failing to “identify a need for these audio files grounded in legislative or impeachment purposes.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
What we need from Jordan and Comer is less promising and more doing.
So, you’re telling us you will not cooperate?
https://pixels.com/featured/boy-sticking-out-his-tongue-c1960s-h-armstrong-robertsclassicstock.html
Who made WHO? ..Does not the branch requesting document FUND the agency refusing to disclose to THE house that FUNDS the?......would make a sane person wonder what is really going on.
DOJ doesn’t have the power to determine to withhold.
“DOJ refuses to comply with congressional subpoena...”
Congress will punish the DOJ by increasing their funding.
Obviously they are hiding that the transcripts don’t match the audio recordings. If they did, they would simply provide the recordings.
Obstruction of Justice!
The DoJ Administrative State - that defines itself as a branch of the federal government.
DOJ lawyers all have immunity. Above the law.
Look, they’re a criminal racket and just doing their job so. they’re protected.
Contempt of Congress. Off to jail with no hhem!
We no longer have a functional government.
Refuses to comply with legal congressional subpoenas.
Has no problem illegally supplying coordination and help to attack Trump and Conservatives. Will not prosecute government employees like Lois Lerner who abuse government, or Spy’s like Joe Biden.
What do people expect in a fascist state?
Meanwhile, Peter Navarro is sent to prison for refusing to comply with congressional subpoena. He had a strong presidential executive privilege defense, but the Rats still threw him in prison.
Filthy evil scumbag hypocrite’s, all of them. /spit
Time for the House to hold the DOJ in contempt of Congress.....then it will be time to imprison several DOJ officials because we jail people now for being in contempt of Congress.
Oh wait. I’m sorry. That only applies to Republicans.
Follow up and punishment requires a spine.
How will they do that? Ask the DOJ to prosecute itself for failure to comply?
Oh boy! The Big Guy’s Department of Just Us will get right on this!
Ping
“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”
Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions.
Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)
If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.
Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.
Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.
Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.
Some references
[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html
[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf
[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/
In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.
In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.
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.