From the No One Is Above the Law Files - DOJ Refuses to Pursue Criminal Contempt Changes Against Merrick Garland

[BackAgain]

Do you have any example of that ever happening?

An example of a claim of executive privilege being denied by a court?

Take a peek at U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974).

It was in all the papers.

Also, refer to Oversight v. Lynch, 156 F. Supp. 3d 101 (D.D.C. 2016).

 

[alang1216]

An example of a claim of executive privilege being denied by a court?

Take a peek at U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974).

It was in all the papers.

Also, refer to Oversight v. Lynch, 156 F. Supp. 3d 101 (D.D.C. 2016).

These are all legal cases that adjudicate points of law. The may have accepted "Friend of the Court" petitions but it was interpretation of the law not popular opinion that guided them.

 

[BackAgain]

These are all legal cases that adjudicate points of law. The may have accepted "Friend of the Court" petitions but it was interpretation of the law not popular opinion that guided them.

I suppose that’s as close as you are capable of coming to addressing this topic.

You miss by a country mile.

We are talking about the law and not popular opinion. Your attempt at quibbling is meaningless.

 

[Care4all]

LOL

This is a taped recording of Biden's interview with Hur, one that they have provided a written transcript for. There is no executive privilege for this.

There is no Congressional need for it, to accomplish their over site jobs and creating legislation.

They have the word for word transcript.

This is only wanted so Republicans can release audio, in a political campaign ad. Campaigning advantage is NOT a congressional, constitutional duty.

 

[Care4all]

Same "tempest in a teapot" that got Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon sentenced to 4 months.

If you shitlibs didn't have double standards....

President trump did not make the claim of executive privilege and did not back either of them up. If he had, it might have been different, for both.

They did not provide congress with any full word for word legal transcripts.....as Garland provided word for word legal transcripts for the questioning and there is no need for the audio, other than political shenanigans by the Republicans.

 

[excalibur]

 

[beautress]

Basically, they say that Garland is above the law. Why? Well, a voice recording of Biden's voice is now 'executive privilege' territory. Which is, of course, bullshit.

This lawless administration is plunging us into a Constitutional crisis.

...​

​

“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 Felipe Uriarte, an assistant attorney general, wrote in the letter.​

​

The letter also cited DOJ policy not to prosecute officials for contempt of Congress when they don’t comply with subpoenas due to a presidential claim of executive privilege.​

​

A request for comment and confirmation of the content of the letter sent to the DOJ was not immediately returned.​

​

...​

DOJ Refuses to Pursue Criminal Contempt Changes Against Merrick Garland - 🔔 The Liberty Daily

If you love the news, check out The Liberty Daily's homepage. (The Epoch Times)—An official from the Department of Justice (DOJ) told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in a letter that Attorney General Merrick Garland will not be prosecuted for contempt of Congress because his refusal to hand...

thelibertydaily.com

​

Some of this issue could be because of the Separation of powers clause.