Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral
-
Jolly, I figured you'd be against the weaponization of Congress. I know the Republicans did this as an election year tactic in 2012 to Holder... which later amounted to nothing since Obama claimed executive privilege and later an investigation cleared Holder of wrongdoing. 12 years later... same song, same dance?
@89th said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
Obama claimed executive privilege and later an investigation cleared Holder of wrongdoing. 12 years later... same song, same dance?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
They never seem to understand the two edged sword. The problem is we keep electing these snakes.
@Mik said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
They never seem to understand the two edged sword. The problem is we keep electing these snakes.
That's right. Holder and Barr were held in contempt.
The problem I have with it is that some, like Navarro and Bannon, get sent to jail while others don't.
Holding the AG in contempt is a
clownside show. It's a political gesture rather than enforcement of law."Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@89th said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
Obama claimed executive privilege and later an investigation cleared Holder of wrongdoing. 12 years later... same song, same dance?
-
@George-K said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
Any more transparently political than the request for the audio?
@jon-nyc said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
Any more transparently political than the request for the audio?
The audio is damaging.
GOP: We want to damage you.
Dems: We don't want you to see how addled our man is. It might damage us.
Tough call.
-
@Mik said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
Assuming they trust the transcript is accurate and complete.
Why wouldn't they....
-
@Mik said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
Assuming they trust the transcript is accurate and complete.
Why wouldn't they....
@George-K said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
@Mik said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
Assuming they trust the transcript is accurate and complete.
Why wouldn't they....
They don’t trust Donald Trump appointees? They figure clerks to Chief Justice Renquist are secret libtards?
Or do they not really think at all but just buy into the maga victimhood narrative sold to them by maga media?
It’s all so complicated.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
@George-K said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
@Mik said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
Assuming they trust the transcript is accurate and complete.
Why wouldn't they....
They don’t trust Donald Trump appointees? They figure clerks to Chief Justice Renquist are secret libtards?
Or do they not really think at all but just buy into the maga victimhood narrative sold to them by maga media?
It’s all so complicated.
@jon-nyc said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
They don’t trust Donald Trump appointees? They figure clerks to Chief Justice Renquist are secret libtards?
"Trump appointees" has been mentioned several times.
Does it really matter? Does a judge, once sitting on the bench feel that s/he "owes" something to the person who appointed him/her? Yeah, there's obvious differences in philosophy, but will a judge/justcie toe the ideological line?
We saw, not too long ago, how SCOTUS is probably 3-3-3.
-
He’s not a judge. The special counsel who interviewed Biden is a life long republican and FedSoc member who clerked for Renquist and decades later was appointed AUSA by Trump.
Yeah, I think he would never edit a transcript to make Biden look good, nor would it be possible given how many people were present then.
Besides, the transcript doesn’t make him look good.
All the non-falsifiable conspiracy theories are getting tiring.
-
He’s not a judge. The special counsel who interviewed Biden is a life long republican and FedSoc member who clerked for Renquist and decades later was appointed AUSA by Trump.
Yeah, I think he would never edit a transcript to make Biden look good, nor would it be possible given how many people were present then.
Besides, the transcript doesn’t make him look good.
All the non-falsifiable conspiracy theories are getting tiring.
@jon-nyc said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
I think he would never edit a transcript to make Biden look good
I agree.
Now, the converse of that question is, "What is Garland afraid of? What is in the audio that he doesn't want Congres and the public to hear?" If you say the transcript is accurate, and I have no doubt that it is, why not let Congress compare? Editing a transcript to make Biden look good is not quite the same thing as not releasing an audio to prevent Biden from looking bad.
See My Cousin Vinnie for the difference between transcript and audio.
-
@Mik said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
They never seem to understand the two edged sword. The problem is we keep electing these snakes.
That's right. Holder and Barr were held in contempt.
The problem I have with it is that some, like Navarro and Bannon, get sent to jail while others don't.
Holding the AG in contempt is a
clownside show. It's a political gesture rather than enforcement of law. -
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/13/nx-s1-5005025/justice-department-garland-contempt
The Justice Department has declined to pursue a criminal case against Attorney General Merrick Garland, just days after House Republicans voted to hold him in contempt for defying a congressional subpoena for audiotapes of President Biden.
Prosecutors said Garland enjoys a legal shield from prosecution because Biden asserted executive privilege over the tapes last month. The decision means the case is now closed.
That’s in line with how the Justice Department handled two previous episodes where congressional majorities advanced contempt resolutions against Garland’s predecessors, Attorneys General Eric Holder and Bill Barr.
"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," Carlos Uriarte, the assistant attorney general, said in a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson.
-
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/13/nx-s1-5005025/justice-department-garland-contempt
The Justice Department has declined to pursue a criminal case against Attorney General Merrick Garland, just days after House Republicans voted to hold him in contempt for defying a congressional subpoena for audiotapes of President Biden.
Prosecutors said Garland enjoys a legal shield from prosecution because Biden asserted executive privilege over the tapes last month. The decision means the case is now closed.
That’s in line with how the Justice Department handled two previous episodes where congressional majorities advanced contempt resolutions against Garland’s predecessors, Attorneys General Eric Holder and Bill Barr.
"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," Carlos Uriarte, the assistant attorney general, said in a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson.
@George-K said in Contempt of Congress - Criminal Referral:
That’s in line with how the Justice Department handled two previous episodes where congressional majorities advanced contempt resolutions against Garland’s predecessors, Attorneys General Eric Holder and Bill Barr.
At least They are consistent.
