Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, June 13, 2024

The Republican-controlled House voted Wednesday to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress -- a politically charged broadside against the Biden administration that comes a day after Garland's Justice Department won a conviction against Biden's son Hunter on felony gun charges.


Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Republicans sure do a lot to help the average American.


Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

An interesting development.

Why, exactly does the House Committee need his testimony when there is ful transcript available?

From the cited article...

... Republicans said Garland was in contempt of Congress for not turning over audiotapes of an interview with President Biden conducted last year by special counsel Robert K. Hur. The Justice Department had previously provided lawmakers with a transcript of that interview but refused to turn over the audiotapes, invoking executive privilege and saying it would set a bad precedent to share such audio for future high-profile cases that do not lead to criminal charges.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called the contempt vote "essential to ensure transparency and accountability within the special counsel's office. It is up to Congress -- not the executive branch -- to determine what materials it needs to conduct its own investigations, and there are consequences for refusing to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas."

Rep. Dave Joyce (Ohio) was the only Republican to vote against the measure. "As a former prosecutor, I cannot in good conscience support a resolution that would further politicize our judicial system to score political points," he said in a written statement. "The American people expect Congress to work for them, solve policy problems, and prioritize good governance. Enough is enough." ...

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said at a news conference Wednesday that Republicans are "entitled to all the evidence" and that the audio recording was the best evidence. ...

Oh, another Rep Jordan "investigation?"

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-06-12 07:25 PM | Reply

from the thread article

"It is deeply disappointing that this House of Representatives has turned a serious congressional authority into a partisan weapon," the attorney general said in a written statement after the vote, which he said "disregards the constitutional separation of powers, the Justice Department's need to protect its investigations, and the substantial amount of information we have provided to the Committees. I will always stand up for this Department, its employees, and its vital mission to defend our democracy."


"House GOP gets a political win for Trump " which might be its last of the year

Republican leaders' thin margin of control means they're unlikely to hit Biden's Department of Justice in any major way during the current government funding debate.

House Republicans landed a big political punch against President Joe Biden on Wednesday, just hours before they're set to welcome Donald Trump to the Hill. They almost certainly can't do more before November.

GOP leaders' thin margin of control in the House, however, means they're unlikely to hit Biden's Department of Justice in any major way during the current government funding debate.

Conservatives who believe the White House is within their reach want to pack their pro-Trump priorities into this summer's lineup of spending bills " such as yanking money from DOJ special counsel Jack Smith or blocking new funding for an FBI headquarters.

But even some of the House GOP's staunchest pro-Trump hardliners are openly acknowledging that in order to further rein in the DOJ, their colleagues would have to be willing to shut down the government over it.

And that support among Republicans simply isn't there.

It's not even clear they'll be able to get an initial DOJ funding bill through the House after it ran aground due to GOP divisions last year."

They were willing to go after a Cabinet Member just to get fodder for political ads from the debunked testimony of one witness.

Desperate times call for desperate Trumpers, one supposes.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2024-06-12 07:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Weaponization of government by the committee investigating the weaponization of government.

I guess it's time to Investigate the investigators. Again.

#3 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-06-13 12:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gym Jordan holding a vote to hold Garland in contempt for doing the exact same thing he did is PEAK GOP hypocrisy.

What else would you expect from the do nothing House?

#4 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-06-13 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Gym Jordan holding a vote to hold Garland in contempt for doing the exact same thing he did is PEAK GOP hypocrisy"

Well, At least Garland knows the first 700 days are free.

Right, Gym?

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-06-13 12:53 PM | Reply

Cool I'd like to hold in in contempt too for allowing fascists, terrorists, and russian agents to go unpunished after attempting a coup and asking trump for pardons.

#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-06-13 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Holding him in contempt seems reasonable...after all, he is contemptable

#7 | Posted by brerrabbit at 2024-06-13 04:16 PM | Reply

This situation is so transparent it's laughable. All sentient beings know that the GOPers in Congress want the Hur tapes to try to find Diamond Joe stuttering or pausing, or giving a rambling reply to questions. Only a few Trump-appointed judges would let this matter go to trial. No charges were filed and Congress was supplied with written transcripts and testimony from Hur. The only reason this is still at issue is because of Hur's gratuitous comments about Biden...

#8 | Posted by catdog at 2024-06-13 04:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Why, exactly does the House Committee need his testimony when there is ful transcript available?"

In a court case the judge will instruct the jury that the transcript isn't admissible as evidence if audio or video exists.

The better question is why won't Barland release the recordings to Congress for oversight?

#9 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-06-13 09:19 PM | Reply

Garland is only concerned about optics because he is a coward.

instead of going for justice he bends over backwards to appear non political, which is itself political. im glad he didnt get on the SCOTUS.

#10 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-06-13 09:32 PM | Reply

Re: #10


I certainly wish he'd gotten on the SCOTUS

#11 | Posted by hamburglar at 2024-06-14 07:54 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort