"We will press forward with calling the privilege motion on inherent contempt to the floor on Friday morning."
minute read
ADVERTISEMENT
Speaking to press on Wednesday morning, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, along with other GOP reps, held Biden's Attorney General Merrick Garland in inherent contempt of Congress.
"We are here today because of the double standard that exists within the justice system," Luna began. "As you know, on February 27, the Oversight Committee as well as House Judiciary had sent a subpoena to Attorney General Garland, of which we received no response. And after referring him for criminal contempt, within 48 hours or less, the Department of Justice refused to prosecute."
"It's simple..." Luna posted, "1. The DOJ decided not to prosecute Biden. 2. Merrick Garland decided not to turn over the evidence to back the DOJ's decision. 3. Congress holds him in contempt. 4. DOJ refuses to prosecute Garland. 5. Inherent Contempt. Defy subpoenas. Be held accountable."
"Inherent contempt is clearly within our Article One authorities and Congress does have the power to investigate all legislative powers. Investigations are part of our legislative process, and people that interfere with these processes should be held accountable," she said.
"Inherent contempt was first used in 1795 and this was further upheld in a Supreme Court decision in 1927 in McGrain v. Daugherty that stated that Congress does indeed have this authority."
"It's important to note that when an individual is called before courts across the country, they appear. Why should the attorney general, who's supposed to be head of all law enforcement authorities, be any different? Garland still has time to comply with this request. We are asking that he bring the tapes to the House and let us listen to them."
"But in the event that he does not, we will press forward with calling the privilege motion on inherent contempt to the floor on Friday morning."
"It is also important to note that if we as a Congress do not have the ability to enforce our investigative ability, that we are essentially going to be ignored and undercut and essentially handicapped by all other branches which would make us not a co-equal branch of government," she said. She also encouraged the press to "report on this accurately in that Congress, again, does have the authority to do this, that the attorney general is not above the law. And ultimately we will be pressing forward with this. This is something that again, would enable the Speaker of the House to order the sergeant of arms to take into custody the Attorney General if he fails to comply with our requests," she concluded.
Garland had refused to comply with a Congressional subpoena demanding the audio interview betweent special counsel Robert Hur and President Joe Biden concerning classified documents he took home after his VP term in office. The transcript was released to Congress, but not the tapes, which reportedly differ from the official account.
Garland cited executive privilege when he said he would not comply with the subpoena, and later said he would not provide Congress with the audio because it would "chill cooperation with the department in future investigations." He said in early June that the DOJ went to "extraordinary lengths to ensure that the committee gets responses to its legitimate requests for information," and went on to say that "we have made clear that we will not provide audio recordings from which the transcripts that you already have were created," Garland said.
"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," Garland said. For Luna, that cuts both ways. She said a Congressional subpoena would not be worth much if Congress could not penalize persons for defying them.
When the House voted to hold Garland in contempt, passing on a recommendation to the DOJ to prosecute, the DOJ declined to do so, saying "Consistent with this longstanding position and uniform practice, 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, the Department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General."
"We are here today because of the double standard that exists within the justice system," Luna began. "As you know, on February 27, the Oversight Committee as well as House Judiciary had sent a subpoena to Attorney General Garland, of which we received no response. And after referring him for criminal contempt, within 48 hours or less, the Department of Justice refused to prosecute."
"It's simple..." Luna posted, "1. The DOJ decided not to prosecute Biden. 2. Merrick Garland decided not to turn over the evidence to back the DOJ's decision. 3. Congress holds him in contempt. 4. DOJ refuses to prosecute Garland. 5. Inherent Contempt. Defy subpoenas. Be held accountable."
"Inherent contempt is clearly within our Article One authorities and Congress does have the power to investigate all legislative powers. Investigations are part of our legislative process, and people that interfere with these processes should be held accountable," she said.
"Inherent contempt was first used in 1795 and this was further upheld in a Supreme Court decision in 1927 in McGrain v. Daugherty that stated that Congress does indeed have this authority."
"It's important to note that when an individual is called before courts across the country, they appear. Why should the attorney general, who's supposed to be head of all law enforcement authorities, be any different? Garland still has time to comply with this request. We are asking that he bring the tapes to the House and let us listen to them."
"But in the event that he does not, we will press forward with calling the privilege motion on inherent contempt to the floor on Friday morning."
"It is also important to note that if we as a Congress do not have the ability to enforce our investigative ability, that we are essentially going to be ignored and undercut and essentially handicapped by all other branches which would make us not a co-equal branch of government," she said. She also encouraged the press to "report on this accurately in that Congress, again, does have the authority to do this, that the attorney general is not above the law. And ultimately we will be pressing forward with this. This is something that again, would enable the Speaker of the House to order the sergeant of arms to take into custody the Attorney General if he fails to comply with our requests," she concluded.
Garland had refused to comply with a Congressional subpoena demanding the audio interview betweent special counsel Robert Hur and President Joe Biden concerning classified documents he took home after his VP term in office. The transcript was released to Congress, but not the tapes, which reportedly differ from the official account.
Garland cited executive privilege when he said he would not comply with the subpoena, and later said he would not provide Congress with the audio because it would "chill cooperation with the department in future investigations." He said in early June that the DOJ went to "extraordinary lengths to ensure that the committee gets responses to its legitimate requests for information," and went on to say that "we have made clear that we will not provide audio recordings from which the transcripts that you already have were created," Garland said.
"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," Garland said. For Luna, that cuts both ways. She said a Congressional subpoena would not be worth much if Congress could not penalize persons for defying them.
When the House voted to hold Garland in contempt, passing on a recommendation to the DOJ to prosecute, the DOJ declined to do so, saying "Consistent with this longstanding position and uniform practice, 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, the Department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General."
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign in to comment
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments