This could get interesting.
1) House sources are expecting Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) to force a vote to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in “inherent contempt” of Congress sometime in the middle of next week. Fox is told the vote likely comes Wednesday or Thursday.
What is “inherent contempt?”
It’s similar to “contempt” of Congress – in which the House voted to hold Garland earlier this month for failing to respond to a subpoena to provide audiotapes of the interview Special Counsel Robert Hur conducted with President Biden about the classified documents case.
But “inherent contempt” is a dramatic and historic escalation.
The House has not held anyone in inherent contempt since the 1930s. Prior to that, you must go back to the early 1800s and 1790s.
Yes. That’s correct.
With “inherent contempt,” the House approves the resolution – and doesn’t rely on the Justice Department to prosecute the contempt of Congress case. In this case, the House deploys its “inherent” powers and dispatches House Sergeant at Arms Bill McFarland and his team to “arrest” Garland. Ostensibly, Garland could be held BY CONGRESS (read that again) until he provides the audiotapes.
Such a scenario creates an extraordinary conflict between the legislative branch of government and the executive branch. Keep in mind that Garland is protected by armed FBI agents. Does this create some sort of a standoff?
Unclear. And no one seems to know on Capitol Hill.
=========
2) The last time Congress used its inherent contempt powers, it held a Commerce Department official who refused to cooperate at the Willard Hotel in Washington for ten days in 1934.
Fox is told that Democrats would likely move to table or kill the resolution to hold Garland in “inherent contempt.” Thus, the vote is one step removed from an actual up/down vote on inherent contempt. If the House moves to the table, the issue is dead. However, if the House rejects tabling the measure, it proceeds to hold a vote on actual inherent contempt.
Fox is told that Garland has reached out to moderate Republicans, pushing them to reject inherent contempt.
=========
3) Moreover, a senior House Republican leadership source doubted the House has the votes to approve inherent contempt.
“We have got to improve the rules on some of these resolutions where one person can make a privileged resolution or vacate the chair,” said one senior House Republican leadership source who asked not to be identified.
However, the current contempt resolution carries over. Republicans suggest that Garland could face prosecution should former President Trump win next year.
Moreover, Republicans are using Garland to underscore their “two tiered” justice system narrative. They note that the House held former Trump aides Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress after they failed to comply with a subpoena by the committee investigating the Capitol riot. They were both prosecuted by the Biden Justice Department. Navarro is in jail now. Bannon is on schedule to report to jail next month. Republicans will argue that the Biden Justice Department is unwilling to prosecute its own Attorney General – despite the same charge: failure to comply with a Congressional subpoena.
1) House sources are expecting Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) to force a vote to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in “inherent contempt” of Congress sometime in the middle of next week. Fox is told the vote likely comes Wednesday or Thursday.
What is “inherent contempt?”
It’s similar to “contempt” of Congress – in which the House voted to hold Garland earlier this month for failing to respond to a subpoena to provide audiotapes of the interview Special Counsel Robert Hur conducted with President Biden about the classified documents case.
But “inherent contempt” is a dramatic and historic escalation.
The House has not held anyone in inherent contempt since the 1930s. Prior to that, you must go back to the early 1800s and 1790s.
Yes. That’s correct.
With “inherent contempt,” the House approves the resolution – and doesn’t rely on the Justice Department to prosecute the contempt of Congress case. In this case, the House deploys its “inherent” powers and dispatches House Sergeant at Arms Bill McFarland and his team to “arrest” Garland. Ostensibly, Garland could be held BY CONGRESS (read that again) until he provides the audiotapes.
Such a scenario creates an extraordinary conflict between the legislative branch of government and the executive branch. Keep in mind that Garland is protected by armed FBI agents. Does this create some sort of a standoff?
Unclear. And no one seems to know on Capitol Hill.
=========
2) The last time Congress used its inherent contempt powers, it held a Commerce Department official who refused to cooperate at the Willard Hotel in Washington for ten days in 1934.
Fox is told that Democrats would likely move to table or kill the resolution to hold Garland in “inherent contempt.” Thus, the vote is one step removed from an actual up/down vote on inherent contempt. If the House moves to the table, the issue is dead. However, if the House rejects tabling the measure, it proceeds to hold a vote on actual inherent contempt.
Fox is told that Garland has reached out to moderate Republicans, pushing them to reject inherent contempt.
=========
3) Moreover, a senior House Republican leadership source doubted the House has the votes to approve inherent contempt.
“We have got to improve the rules on some of these resolutions where one person can make a privileged resolution or vacate the chair,” said one senior House Republican leadership source who asked not to be identified.
However, the current contempt resolution carries over. Republicans suggest that Garland could face prosecution should former President Trump win next year.
Moreover, Republicans are using Garland to underscore their “two tiered” justice system narrative. They note that the House held former Trump aides Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress after they failed to comply with a subpoena by the committee investigating the Capitol riot. They were both prosecuted by the Biden Justice Department. Navarro is in jail now. Bannon is on schedule to report to jail next month. Republicans will argue that the Biden Justice Department is unwilling to prosecute its own Attorney General – despite the same charge: failure to comply with a Congressional subpoena.
