A Republican congresswoman plans to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland accountable for refusing to release the Biden audio tapes from his interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. Hur was investigating the president over allegations that he mishandled classified information. He did but wasn’t charged for it, with Mr. Hur claiming that Biden’s age and failing memory were mitigating factors at trial.
The House held Garland in contempt for withholding the tapes, but the Biden Justice Department issued a memo that Garland couldn’t be prosecuted. Merrick Garland decreed that…Merrick Garland can’t be dragged into the court over this; no one except Biden and his officials are above the law. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna R-FL) plans to push for “inherent contempt,” which hasn’t been invoked since the 1930s. Fox News’ Chad Pergram has more, including how this move could pit the two branches on a brutal collision course. Why? It bypasses the DOJ on enforcement: the House Sergeant at Arms is tasked with arresting Garland, detaining him until he forks over the audio files:
1) House sources are expecting Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) to force a vote to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in “inherent contempt” of Congress sometime in the middle of next week. Fox is told the vote likely comes Wednesday or Thursday.
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) June 21, 2024
What is “inherent contempt?”…
2) The last time Congress used its inherent contempt powers, it held a Commerce Department official who refused to cooperate at the Willard Hotel in Washington for ten days in 1934.
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) June 21, 2024
Fox is told that Democrats would likely move to table or kill the resolution to hold Garland in…
3) Moreover, a senior House Republican leadership source doubted the House has the votes to approve inherent contempt.
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) June 21, 2024
“We have got to improve the rules on some of these resolutions where one person can make a privileged resolution or vacate the chair,” said one senior House…
What is “inherent contempt?”
It’s similar to “contempt” of Congress – in which the House voted to hold Garland earlier this month for failing to respond to a subpoena to provide audiotapes of the interview Special Counsel Robert Hur conducted with President Biden about the classified documents case.
But “inherent contempt” is a dramatic and historic escalation.
The House has not held anyone in inherent contempt since the 1930s. Prior to that, you must go back to the early 1800s and 1790s.
Yes. That’s correct.
With “inherent contempt,” the House approves the resolution – and doesn’t rely on the Justice Department to prosecute the contempt of Congress case. In this case, the House deploys its “inherent” powers and dispatches House Sergeant at Arms Bill McFarland and his team to “arrest” Garland. Ostensibly, Garland could be held BY CONGRESS (read that again) until he provides the audiotapes.
Such a scenario creates an extraordinary conflict between the legislative branch of government and the executive branch. Keep in mind that Garland is protected by armed FBI agents. Does this create some sort of a standoff?
Images of Garland in handcuffs would delight conservatives, but does this have the votes? Probably not. If there is to be justice on this matter, there will need to be a new president.
The transcript of the recordings has been released, which makes this Alamo-like last standoff effort puzzling concerning the audio portions. Biden’s personal attorney, Bob Bauer, opened the door to this when Democrats and the media went insane over the Hur report, which highlighted his age. Bauer said that his recollection of the interview was different than was submitted by Mr. Hur. Okay, well, release the tapes, then. Biden has invoked executive privilege, which legally doesn’t hold water, but it’s the president’s delay tactic since we can only speculate how bad he sounds on these tapes.
Garland has disregarded congressional subpoenas on this matter. The reason he offered was that he didn’t like these legal actions. That’s not verbatim, but the overall tone was ‘I can ignore subpoenas from elected lawmakers if I think they’re too partisan.’
