DOJ won't prosecute AG Garland for contempt for refusal to turn over audio from Biden, Hur interview

[candycorn]

Who does the AG answer to? No one? Yeah that does t sound like recipe for disaster.

Congress will still have oversight and the President would still appoint the AG. They would just have a 10 year term like the director of the FBI currently has if I'm not mistaken.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Does Congress have oversight of the DOj or not?

only for legislative intent

They have no legislation based on that information, only nosiness

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The White house has admitted it edited and altered the transcripts. The Congress may or may not have what you call oversight of the doj, but they can subpoena and question them, and of course they have power over their funding. Navarro and Bannon ended up in jail for ignoring subpoenas. The thing is if you think of Congress and the doj as adversaries you really need to rethink that. You have no champion in Washington and there is no cavalry coming to save you. No one wants any more cans of worms opened in this year or any other year. Trump is a designated common enemy of the power structure, and he gets no immunity from persecution.

the watcher, look up the role of 'legislative intent' in oversight by Congress, and then apply it to the transcripts.

 

[the watcher]

Thanks but I don't have to look up anything to know right from wrong or recognize obstruction of justice when I see it.

 

[Couchpotato]

only for legislative intent

They have no legislation based on that information, only nosiness

Where does it say that? Oversight is an implied power derived from Constitution. There’s nothing that outlines what exactly that oversight looks like. If Congress was entitled to the transcript of that interview I don’t see the legal justification for keeping the audio from them. The Executive doesn’t get to set terms by which the Congress conducts its oversight.

 

[j-mac]

Maybe the intent is to legislate that we never allow someone of Biden’s cognitive decline to hold the office.

 

[Couchpotato]

Congress will still have oversight and the President would still appoint the AG. They would just have a 10 year term like the director of the FBI currently has if I'm not mistaken.

If Trump wins the next election and suggests this exact reform you’d support it?

 

[candycorn]

If Trump wins the next election and suggests this exact reform you’d support it?

I brought it up in 2018; every blob supporting neanderthal here ( sorry for the redundancy) was appalled at the very thought that the AG couldn't be independent of the person who hired him.

 

[forkup]

Where does it say that? Oversight is an implied power derived from Constitution. There’s nothing that outlines what exactly that oversight looks like. If Congress was entitled to the transcript of that interview I don’t see the legal justification for keeping the audio from them. The Executive doesn’t get to set terms by which the Congress conducts its oversight.

And again. Countless lawsuits under the Trump administration. All with the express purpose of setting the terms of congressional oversight says otherwise. Arguing everything from executive privilege to attorney client privilege. Including the refusal to honor subpoenas from the same people who are now demanding oversight.

 

[berg80]

You only have one right, and that is to lick the boots of the DNC.

DOJ won’t charge William Barr, Wilbur Ross after contempt vote​

The Justice Department will not bring criminal charges against Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross after the Democrat-led House voted last week to hold them in contempt.

In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said the Cabinet officials’ defiance of congressional subpoenas seeking information about the 2020 census “did not constitute a crime.”
“[A]ccordingly the department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the attorney general or the secretary,” Rosen wrote, citing legal precedents from administration of both parties.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/24/justice-william-barr-wilbur-ross-1432595

Save your self righteous indignation for another day.

 

[gtopa1]

Garland has all the power, so he can do anything he wants.

Yes, we know.

Congress be damned.

Until January.

Greg

 

[forkup]

Where does it say that? Oversight is an implied power derived from Constitution. There’s nothing that outlines what exactly that oversight looks like. If Congress was entitled to the transcript of that interview I don’t see the legal justification for keeping the audio from them. The Executive doesn’t get to set terms by which the Congress conducts its oversight.

As for legal justification. The same rational Trump is now arguing in front of the Supreme Court.

That the position of president holds a certain power to resist oversight. In the case of Biden. The "oversight" of not being required to turn over a tape from an interview of a prosecutor but the right to simply give a transcript that that same prosecutor has validated as being a correct reflection of that interview.

In the case of Trump. The power to claim immunity of all forms of judicial oversight, even crimes if those crimes can be remotely construed as presidential power.

Of these 2,1 has a considerable broader view of the extent the executive can resist oversight. It is not Biden.


As an aside I don't think Biden or the DOJ should resist turning over the tape. Not as a legal matter, but as a matter of principle. I actually believe in separation of power. And being required to hand over material from one branch of government to another should only be resisted in the most extreme of circumstances. This is not it in my opinion.

The only problem I have, is that it's just one of those countless examples of where being principled actually loses out to the party who's most ruthless. Because I have NO DOUBT whatever, that neither you or anyone on the right truly believe in separation of power. If you did. You would not support Trump.

 

[Dragonlady]

Navarro and bannon go to prison for the same crime but not garland!!! The DOJ is all about politics. America has the right to hear this audio.

DOJ won't prosecute AG Garland for contempt for refusal to turn over audio from Biden, Hur interview

The Justice Department will not prosecute U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland after House Republicans voted Wednesday to hold him in contempt.

www.foxnews.com

Navarro and Bannon SHOULD be in prison.

Gym Jordan, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs and Kevin McCarthy, among others, also refused Congressional Supoenas for their testimony before the January 6th Committee, and none of them were prosecuted or jailed.

The Insurrectionist Party is all about hypocrisy and hate. Americans have a right to hear their testimony and know what they did to help Trump overthrow the government.

Congress already has the transcript. The tape adds nothing to that, but given way the right is using doctored video of the President to make him look frail and confused, and their attempt during the 2020 election to slow down audio of Nancy Pelosi to make her sound drunk, I have no faith that Republicans wouldn't do this same with this audio.

 

[berg80]

As an aside I don't think Biden or the DOJ should resist turning over the tape. Not as a legal matter, but as a matter of principle.

That only works if both sides take principled positions. Barr and Ross were held in contempt for the outright refusal to turn over ANY documents requested by the House in its census investigation. Conversely, Garland has turned over the transcript and thousands of documents to House Repubs.

 

[forkup]

That only works if both sides take principled positions. Barr and Ross were held in contempt for the outright refusal to turn over ANY documents requested by the House in its census investigation. Conversely, Garland has turned over the transcript and thousands of documents to House Repubs.

I completely understand. And it is an honest to God conundrum. It's just one of those moral ambiguities in politics.

The thing I fear most is that ignoring principle in favor of political expediency can easily evolve in an actual tit for tat. Resulting in not one party simply engaging in power politics consequences be damned but both.

I will not say it's wrong as a choice. But in my opinion when you don't know what's best just going by principle at least gives you something to go by.

And in my view, the executive branch has taken way to much power with to little tools available in the way of oversight.

 

[berg80]

I completely understand. And it is an honest to God conundrum. It's just one of those moral ambiguities in politics.

The thing I fear most is that ignoring principle in favor of political expediency can easily evolve in an actual tit for tat. Resulting in not one party simply engaging in power politics consequences be damned but both.

I will not say it's wrong as a choice. But in my opinion when you don't know what's best just going by principle at least gives you something to go by.

And in my view, the executive branch has taken way to much power with to little tools available in the way of oversight.

I completely understand your concern. I have resisted calling for Dems to lower themselves to the depths of Repubs for fear of causing a race to the bottom. But Repubs are already headed there and the country is suffering the consequences.

 

[forkup]

I completely understand your concern. I have resisted calling for Dems to lower themselves to the depths of Repubs for fear of causing a race to the bottom. But Repubs are already headed there and the country is suffering the consequences.

Sure. The question is simply what to do in response.

In this case. What's the actual harm?

So the DOJ rejects the calls for the tape. Giving Republicans the chance to (completely in bad faith) make the argument that the DOJ is withholding "the truth".

The DOJ gives the tape. They use it to reemphasize that Biden is "old and confused"

Can you honestly claim that you know what argument does the most damage to the Biden campaign?

At least option 2 is in line with my idea of how separation of power should look.

 

[berg80]

In this case. What's the actual harm?

Aside from breaking with precedent regarding EP claims by the WH? Once the Repubs have kicked that door down there will be no end to the cycle of making unreasonable, unnecessary requests for protected material with the goal being the political act of holding a member of the admin in contempt. Further weaponizing the House.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And again. Countless lawsuits under the Trump administration. All with the express purpose of setting the terms of congressional oversight says otherwise. Arguing everything from executive privilege to attorney client privilege. Including the refusal to honor subpoenas from the same people who are now demanding oversight.

The ruling is congressional "legislative intent" needs to be met. Congress does not have the power to subpoena just because "I want to know."

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Where does it say that? Oversight is an implied power derived from Constitution. There’s nothing that outlines what exactly that oversight looks like. If Congress was entitled to the transcript of that interview I don’t see the legal justification for keeping the audio from them. The Executive doesn’t get to set terms by which the Congress conducts its oversight.

www.law.cornell.edu › constitution-conan › article-1Congress's Investigatory Powers and the President | U.S ...​

First, a reviewing court should “carefully assess whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the President