[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – After weeks of promises to sentence Attorney General William P. Barr and former White House lawyer Donald F. McGahn II to challenge subpoenas, House Democrats seem ready to follow suit an alternative way to force them to share information.
A resolution released Thursday by the House Rules Committee would authorize the House to ask a federal court to respond to her requests for information and testimony regarding the report of the special advocate, Robert S. Mueller III, but without mentioning contempt of court. The committee is expected to consider the proposal on Monday and then vote in the House on Tuesday.
The resolution appears to be a tactical reversal on the part of Democrats, who did not immediately explain their decision. Last month, the Judiciary Committee approved a report in which it was officially recommended to the House to try Mr. Barr in contempt of court and legislators continue to use this language to describe next week's vote.
[[[[Read the resolution of the house.]
Even if a contempt vote would allow lawmakers to condemn the two men more energetically, there may be little practical difference between the two approaches. Holding witnesses in contempt of Parliament would allow Congress to criminally remit Mr. Barr and Mr. McGahn to the Department of Justice for prosecution and bring the cases to court for civil enforcement. Since there is almost no chance that the department will ever pursue them, this leaves the courts as the only recourse available in both cases.
In a letter this week, the Department of Justice reported that he was willing to resume negotiations with the Democrats on access to the unredacted Mueller report and all the material collected by the Special Council investigators if the Democrats annulled the Judiciary Committee's recommendation and removed "any threat of An imminent vote in the House of Representatives condemn the Attorney General in contempt. "
The New York representative, Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, rejected the ministry's request but said he would be willing to speak "unconditionally". But by refusing to convict Mr. Barr for criminal contempt in Congress for the time being, Democrats could leave the room. reach an agreement with the Department of Justice while allowing legislators to publicly testify their dissatisfaction and prepare for a legal battle. Nor did they exclude the continuation of criminal contempt in the future.
Instead, the Democrats have developed a measure to accelerate their journey to the courts in an attempt to enforce the House's requirements for documents and testimony allowing for the continuation of multiple investigations, including one for obstruction. to justice and abuse of power by President Trump.
"We will not allow this president and his administration to turn a blind eye to the rule of law," said Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, chair of the Rules Committee. "This resolution will allow Congress to hold the president to account while the Democratic majority will continue to address issues such as health care and jobs."
Democratic leaders are trying to find a way to hold Mr. Trump accountable for the misdeeds described in the Mueller report, while at the same time keeping the growing forces calling for the president's removal. Nevertheless, the omission of contempt text from the Rules Committee's resolution may complicate this effort if Liberal legislators deem it insufficiently punitive.
The resolution that approaches a vote amplifies existing rules to allow committees facing an uncooperative Trump administration to bring cases directly to court for enforcement, provided they have approval leaders in the House. This would eliminate the need to wait for time to vote on the contempt measures, announced Thursday Democratic assistants informed of the plan.
Finally, the resolution authorizes Mr. Nadler to seize a court of disclosure of the grand jury's secrets relating to the Mueller report to Congress. Mr. Nadler tried to convince the Justice Ministry to join him in strengthening him, but Democratic advisers announced Thursday that he would file the request himself in the coming weeks as the House a lawsuit against Mr. Barr and Mr. McGahn. Helps, who were not allowed to speak by name, refused to say when one or the other would happen.
In addition to allowing legislators to publicly express their dissatisfaction with MM. Barr and McGahn, however, it is not likely to immediately reduce the blockade imposed by the administration on the inquiries of the House, or to silence those who call for an impeachment proceeding. In previous cases, including a contempt quote against former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., the courts have taken months or more to resolve and subpoena appeals. (In this case, the Chamber did indeed make a reference to the criminal and the Department of Justice refused to prosecute Mr. Holder.)
Democrats insist that they need information from MM. Barr and McGahn to determine if an indictment is warranted.
In the case of Mr. Barr, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have asked that Mr. Mueller's inquiry be complete. Barr, who voluntarily released a redacted version of the 448-page Mueller report in April, refused to comply, saying the demands were cumbersome and excessive and could jeopardize open investigations. When discussions between the two sides on a compromise were broken, Barr asked Mr. Trump claimed the executive's privilege to protect the material, and the Judiciary Committee voted against him for contempt of court.
Mr. McGahn is no longer a government official, but he is an essential witness to the Chair's investigation into Mr. Mueller's obstruction of justice. The Democrats have assigned him a subpoena to testify before the Judicial Committee and to obtain documents relating to his work with Mr. Trump, who may report obstruction. The White House ordered him not to comply, saying first that the documents in question were owned by them, and that the president's close advisers had full immunity. against any summons to appear before the Congress.
[ad_2]
Source link