This shouldn’t come as a large shock
This shouldn’t come as a large shock
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.'” . .
>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.'”
.
.
[Archive](https://archive.today/C1J2A)
Fine, take him to court in a red state even if it has to be a civil case or something.
Fine, take him to court in a red state even if it has to be a civil case or something.
Wow! Imagine my surprise
Wow! Imagine my surprise
It's OK when they do it...
It's OK when they do it...
I heard he could still be arrested by the sergeant at arms. I'm not sure if this is true, even if it is I doubt the House would go that far.
I heard he could still be arrested by the sergeant at arms. I'm not sure if this is true, even if it is I doubt the House would go that far.
(post is archived)