The House Rules Committee will vote on a resolution to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress next week, potentially paving the path for a full House vote on the stalled legislation.
The Tuesday meeting could signal a shift in GOP dynamics, as at least two Republicans privately stated that they intended to vote against the motion.
Related posts
This week, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) expressed his encouragement to lawmakers following the recent guilty verdict in a New York jury’s hush money case.
Since last month, when two committees presented legislation to reprimand Garland, a rowdy House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing overshadowed the contempt vote.
To accommodate lawmakers attending former President Trump’s New York trial, they postponed their scheduled markup. During the late-night session, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) sparked a dispute by commenting on Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s (D-Texas) use of artificial eyelashes.
However, the resolution’s content has also posed a challenge.
Republicans have attempted to link their subpoena for Garland to their impeachment probe of President Biden.
As part of their investigation into classified documents, Republicans on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees have demanded an audio tape of Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.
Garland objected, pointing out that Republicans already possess a transcript of the interview that reveals no issues related to the GOP impeachment inquiry.
Biden also provided Garland with further legal protection by asserting presidential privilege over the recordings. Democrats speculated that Republicans simply wanted the recording to be used in campaign advertising.
During an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Garland defended his decision, noting that GOP lawmakers have failed to provide any legislative reason for requiring the tapes, leaving little justification for him to take an action that he believes could jeopardize the Justice Department’s ability to secure future interviews.
Garland added that Hur had already given five hours of testimony before lawmakers and that the effort to reprimand him was “only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the Justice Department’s work.”
“I believe disdain is a severe thing. But I will not undermine our prosecutors’ and agents’ capacity to conduct effective investigations in the future,” he assured the panel.
The resolution will go to the full House floor for a vote if it passes the Rules Committee.
However, the legislation effectively serves as a recommendation to the Justice Department, which is then responsible for evaluating if a crime was committed and whether charges should be filed.
It’s unlikely that Justice Department authorities would reach a different decision than Garland when deciding whether he should face prosecution.
