The Justice Department has opted not to prosecute Attorney General Merrick Garland following allegations of contempt by the House of Representatives.
According to Breitbart, the decision was influenced by President Joe Biden's exertion of executive privilege, advising Garland against disclosing subpoenaed documents linked to an investigation into Biden's handling of classified data.
The recent decision from the Department of Justice (DOJ) came after the House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt. Garland had refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas aimed at obtaining records related to Special Counsel Robert Hur's probe into alleged mishandling of classified information by President Biden.
Despite these tensions, the DOJ has maintained a consistent stance over decades that federal officials are not subject to prosecution for contempt of Congress if they withhold information under a presidential claim of executive privilege. This has been reaffirmed in recent cases, including those involving high-profile figures from previous administrations.
The materials under dispute included transcripts, notes, as well as video and audio files from Hur’s investigation, specifically audio recordings from interviews with President Biden. Congressional Republicans placed immense pressure to access these files, highlighting concerns over the written transcripts which they argued showed Biden’s compromised memory and thus deemed them inadequate for generating a comprehensive verdict.
The DOJ’s response to the subpoena came after an exhaustive investigative process by Special Counsel Robert Hur, which concluded in February. Hur unilaterally decided not to proceed with legal actions against President Biden, citing factors like his age and memory issues as justifiable grounds for his decision. Following Hur's investigation, the House moved to enforce a subpoena for related records, which led to the recent vote and subsequent DOJ decision.
Last Wednesday’s House vote resulted in a narrow decision with 216 members in favor versus 207 against holding Garland in contempt. Subsequently, the DOJ formally addressed House Speaker Mike Johnson through a letter on Friday, elaborating on its rationale for not pursuing legal action against Garland.
The Department, in their correspondence, clarified, "That directive was based on a legal opinion advising that asserting privilege would be legally proper. The President’s directive was issued after the Department produced materials responsive to all four requests in the Committee’s subpoenas."
This reflects the DOJ's longstanding policy, which has consistently been employed to shield executive actions under the banner of executive privilege.
The DOJ's decision has parallels with similar instances in recent history. In 2019, former Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross faced contempt of Congress charges but were not prosecuted, underscoring the DOJ's consistent approach to such matters.
This development stands in stark contrast to other recent judicial actions, such as the prosecution of Steve Bannon, a former White House adviser. Unlike Garland, Bannon was found guilty of defying a subpoena issued by a House committee tasked with investigating the January 6 Capitol riot, and he currently faces a prison sentence.
This incident could potentially reshape future interactions between Congress and the Justice Department, especially considering debates around the extent of presidential power and its implications on executive privilege.
As the proceedings unfold, this case sets a precedent on how far executive privilege can extend, especially when it intersects with Congressional oversight. The DOJ's reaffirmation of not prosecuting officials who act under presidential directives continues to be a significant aspect of the legal discourse surrounding executive and legislative branch interactions.
