Merrick Garland 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
Who is online
469 visitors
How embarrassing for Biden can that audio tape be?
Garland got what he deserved.
Old hiden' Biden! It must be really bad, as if the daily parade of video clips isn't enough evidence of his dementia.
They gave us the transcript, but the American people are not allowed to hear what it sounded like?
So? Doesn't mean anything at all.
It means that Garland is above the law.
Just like Jim Jordan. Oh well, deal with it.
Garland is Attorney General of the United States of America!
Lol and he isn't going to prosecute himself.
He now has an asterisk next to his name: HELD IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS.
No Jordan wasn’t.
but Jordan and garland are both extreme partisans so I see why you are so eager to equate the two.
HELD IN CONTEMPT OF A REACTIONARY, DO-NOTHING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
He should be congratulated.
Jordan has been under congressional subpoena for over 2 years. He ignored it.
You claimed Jordan was found in contempt of congress . He wasn’t
He did not make that claim anywhere in this thread or as a comment in this seeded article.
No, I didn't.
correct, totally meaningless coming from the gqp
As the whistleblower testimony made clear, the guy is just a partisan hack.
Most Americans hold this House of Representatives in contempt.
True. They're extremely contemptuous
Nothing new, Congressional approval ratings have been low for 50 years.
I meant to say contemptible!!!
Semantics, no bid deal but thanks for clarifying. Some here would LoL, but I won’t.
actually both and there's many more nasty adjectives to describe such nasty folk
I think we agree that they are contemptuous and contemptible.
[✘]
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.
Correct, Garland will just smile and go about his job.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course it would, all the way to SCOTUS. Do you think it would be bigger than the pardons Lincoln granted the South?
But it was such a great idea when Trump wanted to do it, wasn't it?
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.
Oh well, you're not buying it. Oh my word! I'm destroyed. /s
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."
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.
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
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!
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.
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
Because first Sessions, then Barr had backbones and refused Trump's nonsense, Rosen, Demers and Wilkinson could not help a lame duck president.
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.
It ain't up to you, either. So there you go! No Biden video for MAGAs!
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!
Well don't forget, the VP can nullify the election and appoint the winner. Just like trump said they can.
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.
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.