Attorney General Merrick Garland is on time.
Two House committees have voted to hold Garland in contempt of Congress. House Republicans are unhappy that Garland has failed to produce an audiotape of an interview he conducted with special counsel Robert Hur. President Biden In the case of classified documents. Garland released the transcript of the interview. But Hur suggested that one reason for not indicting the president was that he thought the jury might see the president as an elderly forgetful man and take pity on him.
Many Republicans regularly claim that the president is not completely above board. The Wall Street Journal has now joined that chorus. GOPers are not so subtle about their reasons for wanting the audiotapes. They believe the recordings could expose a weak chief executive who is not fully in control of his faculties. As a result, Republicans could then use the tapes to harass the president and prove their thesis to voters before the election.
Puppies and rainbows: How a bipartisan invitation to Israel’s leader threatens to divide Democrats
“The transcript may be accurate. But you know what? The audio will tell us a lot more,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Arizona, at a Judiciary Committee hearing with Garland on Tuesday.
Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., told Garland that the tape “reveals things about (the president’s) competence.”
Garland would not make the tapes available. So the House Oversight and Judiciary committees voted to find the attorney general guilty of contempt of Congress.
It is not 100 percent certain that the full House has the votes to convict Garland of contempt. With the election of Rep. Vince Fong, R-Calif., Republicans now claim a 218 to 213 lead in the House. Fong won Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthyR-Calif., who resigned.
But even if the House votes to convict Garland of contempt, it’s doubtful that much would come of it.
US Attorney General Merrick Garland testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on June 4, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Getty Images)
Lawmakers could refer charges of contempt of Congress for failure to comply with subpoenas for documents or testimony to the Justice Department for prosecution. In short, the Justice Department run by Garland is not going to prosecute its own attorney general.
So, the Republicans are stuck.
This is where “underlying contempt” comes in.
Implied contempt is a power that Congress can enforce on its own without relying on another branch of government. In other words, Congress can vote to hold a person guilty of contempt for failing to provide information — and Natural To exercise its powers to discipline, arrest, or detain anyone for acting against the House or Senate.
Lawmakers from both parties have talked for years about using implied contempt to get their point across. But until recently, for the first time in nine decades, no one considered it as a legitimate option.
Reporter’s Notebook: There’s little chance MPs will kiss – and ‘make up’
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Florida, says she will introduce a motion for implied contempt — ten days after the House votes on a “regular” contempt for Garland. The idea is that the Justice Department will not prosecute Garland — so Congress will take the matter into its own hands.
Of course, it’s impossible to know whether the House will ever be able to muster the votes needed for an implied contempt motion—especially when even “customary” contempt is risky. But let’s explore implied contempt for a moment and examine how it works.
In the early days of the Republic, Congress relied on inherent contempt. In fact, The Congress voted In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, various newspaper publishers were convicted of contempt. In 1927, a Senate panel voted to approve a warrant for a witness who failed to comply with the subpoena. But a court ruled that the Senate had overstepped its boundaries in that case.
Congress last used implied contempt in 1934. A Commerce Department official refused to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to the airmail scandal. So Congress held the official guilty of contempt.
US President Joe Biden delivers remarks on an executive order limiting asylum in the East Room of the White House on June 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
What did it include?
After the House voted, it sent its House Sergeant at Arms to arrest the officer. The House then detained the officer at the Willard Hotel – a luxurious establishment in the heart of downtown Washington white House -For a week and a half.
Implied contempt is inherently interesting. But also inherently messy. Can anyone imagine what would happen if the House approved an implied contempt resolution for Garland? Would House Sergeant at Arms Bill McFarland and a squad of his deputies — or US Capitol Police officers — show up at Garland’s home one day or Justice Department And demand that the attorney general join them? What will be the response of Garland’s security team? Will it be a cursory meeting, perhaps to inform Garland that he is contemptuous of Congress? Or does it turn into a tense exchange between the legislative and executive branches?
And if Garland does come to Capitol Hill with McFarland, will the House detain him? Where, please? Does Garland immediately come to the Capitol to appear before the Oversight and Judiciary committees?
No one is quite sure about that, not even Luna, the sponsor of the measure.
Statuary Rev. Graham tribute arrives at Capitol, but stays out of limelight
“Ideally, the attorney general would do the right thing and come to our representatives and present the information we’re seeking. But it’s up to them to decide whether or not this is above the law,” Luna said.
I asked what the plan was, since implied contempt would represent such a significant escalation, involving a potential standoff between the two branches of government.
“I think this hasn’t been done in a while,” Luna said. “So we’ll see how it goes.”
I asked Luna if there might be a standoff between McFarland and Garland.
“I don’t think they ever thought we would pursue it,” Luna replied. “It’s definitely something that can be done.”
But nobody knows how.
US Attorney General Merrick Garland testifies before the House Judiciary Committee at the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on June 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
A senior House security official told Fox that there has been some discussion about it. But everybody is just waiting to see what happens.
However, two things must happen first. The House must vote to hold Garland in contempt. And then the House will vote to hold him in underlying contempt. And so far, the House has not demonstrated that it has the votes for a “regular” contempt.
“It would be an extraordinary thing for the Sergeant at Arms to go to (Garland’s) office. Go to his house,” I told Luna.
The Florida Republican responded, “We’re hoping it doesn’t get to that point.”
Click here to get the Fox News app
But as far as anyone can tell, there is no plan. Inherent contempt is inherently complicated. Inherently messy. And inherently tumultuous.
