Garland in handcuffs for obstruction?

[Luvnit2]

AG Garland refused to comply with a subpoena. Now it appears Congress is preparing to arrest him for not complying using a maneuver not used since 1934. It was used a Senate candidate and upheld by the SC. It is inherent contempt and instead of it being prosecuted by the same off the AG runs, it would be prosecuted by Congress. He can avoid it by turning over the Hur tape of Biden to Congress.

I think these things are on a slippery slope. Democrats going after the former POTUS and now the boomerang with Republicans going after the AG and ultimately the current POTUS if those tapes show a less than competent Joe Biden in the taped interviews. I think Hur already said Biden was not able to stand trial, even though he broke the law storing classified documents for decades while a senator and also last 16 years when he was a VP for Obama.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-republicans-warn-garland-could-brought-custody-biden-tapes-inherent-contempt-vote

House Republicans warn Garland could be brought into custody over Biden tapes ahead of inherent contempt vote
Rep Anna Paulina Luna says she will bring an inherent contempt motion to the House floor on Friday

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., warned that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland could be brought into custody for failing to deliver tapes of Special Counsel Rob Hur's interview of President Biden to Congress.

Joined by nine other House Republicans, including Freedom Caucus members as well as more moderate members, Luna on Wednesday announced at a press conference that Garland "still has time" to comply with a congressional subpoena for the tapes, but if he does not, "we will press forward with calling the privilege motion on inherent contempt to the floor on Friday morning."

If the motion is successful, fellow House Republicans will direct House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to call up the Sergeant-at-Arms, "of which they do have the authority under this inherent contempt motion to bring him into custody," Luna said. "I also want to make it clear, though, that this is of Garland's choosing. Again, no one is above the law. And if he chooses to go down this path, then we will."

[hollodero]

(06-26-2024, 04:18 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I think Hur already said Biden was not able to stand trial

What he actually said is that “We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” - so what he actually said was about how Biden would present himself to a jury, not that he is unable to stand trial. Nowhere does Hur say that.
Since you are probably keenly aware of the exact quotes, I have to wonder whether your constant misrepresentation of them is deliberate. If so, not cool.

Hur also concluded that “the evidence is not sufficient to convict” and “no criminal charges are warranted”, so there's no smoking gun to be had. All Republicans could possibly want from any tapes is some ammunition for a personal hit against Biden. How can this not be way too minuscule to threaten contempt and arrest.

[*pally*]

President Biden has claimed executive privilege over the tapes. By precident, Garland is within the norms to not turn over disputed information. If the committee has to have that information, take it to court and let the court decide if it falls under privilege. Until then, all they are doing is grandstanding. It will play well to the base but will turn away independents

Talk about weaponizing government. This committee is the poster child for it

[Luvnit2]

(06-26-2024, 06:33 PM)pally Wrote: President Biden has claimed executive privilege over the tapes.  By president, Garland is within the norms to not turn over disputed information.  If the committee has to have that information, take it to court and let the court decide if it falls under privilege.  Until then, all they are doing is grandstanding.  It will play well to the base but will turn away independents

Talk about weaponizing government.  This committee is the poster child for it

I thought you said all Trump had to do was turn over the documents to avoid prosecution in Florida. In this case, they are giving Garland a heads up, don't turn over the tapes and we will act. Are you also saying a President being investigated for his actions while POTUS is immune?

As I said, I don't like what that did with Trump, not a fan of any type of counter by the right as a result. 

Sorry, Garland and Biden's DOJ won the poster child for their actions against Trump starting in 2016 with a phony Russian Hoax and then added to it with political impeachments followed by sham indictments. Trump is one tough man to be standing after the Democratic DOJ assault the past 8 years.

[Luvnit2]

(06-26-2024, 05:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: What he actually said is that “We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” - so what he actually said was about how Biden would present himself to a jury, not that he is unable to stand trial. Nowhere does Hur say that.
Since you are probably keenly aware of the exact quotes, I have to wonder whether your constant misrepresentation of them is deliberate. If so, not cool.

Hur also concluded that “the evidence is not sufficient to convict” and “no criminal charges are warranted”, so there's no smoking gun to be had. All Republicans could possibly want from any tapes is some ammunition for a personal hit against Biden. How can this not be way too minuscule to threaten contempt and arrest.

Herr is what he said. Yes, the part you referenced he said. But he said a lot more. He defended his report as accurate. He pointed out examples of why he said an elderly man with a poor memory. One was he did not remember the year his son died. He also had trouble remembering events during his time as VP. Hur did say he did commit crimes also.

I have it attached so read the entire thing, if you do it shows exactly why Congress needs to listen to the tapes and so does the entire country prior to the election. If Biden has nothing to hide, why make any attempt to block the tapes?
Special counsel Hur defends comments about Biden mental state in classified documents probe | Courthouse News Service

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

Failure to comply should have some consequences. If there are no teeth, who would comply?

I am not sure if this is the opportunity, but sometimes an example has to be made to come into compliance.

[hollodero]

(06-26-2024, 07:25 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Herr is what he said. Yes, the part you referenced he said. But he said a lot more. He defended his report as accurate. He pointed out examples of why he said an elderly man with a poor memory. One was he did not remember the year his son died. He also had trouble remembering events during his time as VP. Hur did say he did commit crimes also.

Mr. Hur did still never say that Biden is unable to stand trial. He stands by the accuracy of his report. You don't. You make stuff up that isn't in there. Also, which actual crimes did Mr. Hur accuse Biden of, as your last sentence clearly states as fact?

(06-26-2024, 07:25 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I have it attached so read the entire thing, if you do it shows exactly why Congress needs to listen to the tapes and so does the entire country prior to the election. If Biden has nothing to hide, why make any attempt to block the tapes?

Beause of people like you, who only want to use them for a personal hit job. Why would Biden and his team be so stupid to feed you? There is nothing relevant in the tapes, just your hope that something can be snippeted to Biden looking senile and incompetent. Congress does not have to listen to the tapes, they already got a report, a transcript and there really is zero need to further know about the one time someone reminded Biden of the year his son died because he only said the exact day. And really, it's so gross to even go these places in the first place.

Of course with handcuffing the AG and everything. Let's not make this appear politically un-weaponized in any way.

[*pally*]

(06-26-2024, 07:55 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Failure to comply should have some consequences. If there are no teeth, who would comply?

I am not sure if this is the opportunity, but sometimes an example has to be made to come into compliance.

Shouldn't we start with members of Congress who have ignored subpoenas?  If they ignore them from their own body then why should anyone else comply

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-26-2024, 08:03 PM)pally Wrote: Shouldn't we start with members of Congress who have ignored subpoenas?  If they ignore them from their own body then why should anyone else comply

Silly position.

Per usual.

[hollodero]

(06-26-2024, 08:23 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Silly position.

Per usual.

I have some critizism about your politeness and also don't think it is a silly position. That subpoenas can be ignored as long as you state it's just political theatre was well established by the very same Republicans. They don't get to cry foul over it now. Claiming executive privilege also was something the Trump WH did quite frequently. Why would, and how could, Merrick Garland break said executive privilege by complying with a Congressional request.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-26-2024, 09:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have some critizism about your politeness and also don't think it is a silly position. That subpoenas can be ignored as long as you state it's just political theatre was well established by the very same Republicans. They don't get to cry foul over it now. Claiming executive privilege also was something the Trump WH did quite frequently. Why would, and how could, Merrick Garland break said executive privilege by complying with a Congressional request.

I would agree if you can show me where I am opposed to the other side being held to a different standard, but that is not the case.

[hollodero]

(06-26-2024, 09:26 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I would agree if you can show me where I am opposed to the other side being held to a different standard, but that is not the case.

Yeah it's not about that, it's about Republicans that do the subpoenaing. What you seem to do is pick sides in that particular affair, albeit more in a "not this side" sense of picking, eg. by contemplating to give this particular subpoena teeth. To me it seems eerily and apparently unsuited to enforce a subpoena with arrests and whatnot that, if followed, would demand an AG to tear up an executive privilege claim.

[*pally*]

(06-26-2024, 08:23 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Silly position.

Per usual.

You think it is a silly position to think that Congressmen who are defying subpoenas but are trying to charge someone for the same thing is rather hypocritical?

[SunsetBengal]

(06-26-2024, 07:25 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Herr is what he said. Yes, the part you referenced he said. But he said a lot more. He defended his report as accurate. He pointed out examples of why he said an elderly man with a poor memory. One was he did not remember the year his son died. He also had trouble remembering events during his time as VP. Hur did say he did commit crimes also.

I have it attached so read the entire thing, if you do it shows exactly why Congress needs to listen to the tapes and so does the entire country prior to the election. If Biden has nothing to hide, why make any attempt to block the tapes?
Special counsel Hur defends comments about Biden mental state in classified documents probe | Courthouse News Service

People are always talking about things being 'taken out of context', wouldn't listening to the actual recording of the interview provide all the context necessary to clear up any misconceptions? What are they trying to hide here?

[*pally*]

(06-27-2024, 08:58 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: People are always talking about things being 'taken out of context', wouldn't listening to the actual recording of the interview provide all the context necessary to clear up any misconceptions? What are they trying to hide here?

Mr Hur confirmed the transcript was accurate

[SunsetBengal]

(06-27-2024, 09:03 AM)pally Wrote: Mr Hur confirmed the transcript was accurate

Words on paper don't contain tone, inflection, confused babbling gibberish, etc. Let's hear the tape, and all will be settled once and for all.

[Luvnit2]

(06-27-2024, 09:36 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Words on paper don't contain tone, inflection, confused babbling gibberish, etc. Let's hear the tape, and all will be settled once and for all.

Spot on. Hur wrote a report summarizing 6 hours of interviews. It was impossible to put every detail in his report. But the actual 6-hour audio would give the Congress and the voters exactly what Biden said, how he said it and his energy level.

What are Democrats attempting to hide?

[hollodero]

(06-27-2024, 10:28 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Spot on. Hur wrote a report summarizing 6 hours of interviews. It was impossible to put every detail in his report. But the actual 6-hour audio would give the Congress and the voters exactly what Biden said, how he said it and his energy level.

What are Democrats attempting to hide?

Is it usual common practice that tapes of US presidents get publicized in full, even when 6 hours long? Are there dozens of such 6 hour tapes of closed door talks from former presidents around for the public to examine? Seems I know of little to no precedent for that since Nixon. So why would Biden ever do that? There's indeed zero chance that you do not find the occasional misspeaking in 6 hours of tape, such snippets would get thrown together for an attack ad and Biden is all the wiser to not allow for that. He claimed executive privilege, like Trump did a million times too, it is a well established right of a president and republicans need to respect that, just as they expected others to respect it. 

Not to mention that after such a precedent, it would become increasingly difficult to ever question - or in general- talk to - a president in the future when said president knows that the conversation does not stay confidential.

This whole obstinate enthusiasm over getting these tapes, with no other purpose then just hoping Biden makes an asss of himself somewhere, is unsettling. And that's coming from the same folks that - with quite some merit - claim that Biden gets easily beat on the policy issues. Beat him on the policy issues then. This just looks petty.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-27-2024, 10:28 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Spot on. Hur wrote a report summarizing 6 hours of interviews. It was impossible to put every detail in his report. But the actual 6-hour audio would give the Congress and the voters exactly what Biden said, how he said it and his energy level.

What are Democrats attempting to hide?

You hide something to hide something.

It is that simple.

The world stage has seen Biden mepptry, wandering, and gibberish. I am alarmed the government was not making moves to replace him 12 months ago due to all of his mental issues.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-27-2024, 08:34 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: You hide something to hide something.

It is that simple.

The world stage has seen Biden mepptry, wandering, and gibberish. I am alarmed the government was not making moves to replace him 12 months ago due to all of his mental issues.

Seeing how Harris is the VP, I'm not surprised that they've been propping him up for so long.