GOP Press Conference 6/26/24

You guys want to [inaudible 00:00:09]. Okay. Good morning everyone. We are here today because of the double standard that exists within the justice system. As you know, on February 27th, the Oversight Committee, as well as House Judiciary had sent a subpoena to Attorney General Garland, of which we received no response and after referring him for criminal contempt within 48 hours or less, the Department of Justice refused to prosecute. Inherent contempt is clearly within our Article One authorities and Congress does have the power to investigate all legislative powers. Investigations are part of our legislative process and people that interfere with these processes should be held accountable. Inherent contempt was first used in 1795 and this was further upheld in a Supreme Court decision in 1927 in McGrane v. Daugherty that stated that Congress does indeed have this authority. It's important to note that when an individual is called before courts across the country, they appear. (01:11) Why should the Attorney General who is supposed to be head of all law enforcement authorities any different? Garland still has time to comply with this request. We are asking that he bring the tapes to the House and let us listen to them, but in the event that he does not, we will press forward with calling the privilege motion on inherent contempt to the floor on Friday morning. It is also important to note that if we as a Congress do not have the ability to enforce our investigative ability, that we are essentially going to be ignored and undercut and essentially handicapped by all other branches, which would make us not a co-equal branch of government. After me, I have Dan Crenshaw speaking that would like to address this issue, but I would appreciate that the press report on this accurately in that Congress again does have the authority to do this, that the Attorney General is not above the law, and ultimately we will be pressing forward with this. (02:08) This is something that, again, would enable the Speaker of the House to order the Sergeant at Arms to take into custody the Attorney General if he fails to comply with our request.

Thank you, Anna, for doing this. Thank you for pulling us all together and addressing this important issue. The sad legacy of the Biden Administration will be its lawlessness, weaponizing governments against political enemies, using its power to protect itself, undermining the law for cynical politics. This administration has repeatedly circumvented the law, granting executive amnesty last week to around 500,000 aliens, stopping federally funded construction of the border wall, paroling millions of migrants into the country outside the perimeter set by the Congress, which has killed Americans nationwide, most recently in my hometown of Houston. Hanging over the entirety of this administration is the fact that the President's son used his access to his father and his father's offices to enrich himself through foreign business dealings and artwork, where one buyer of Hunter's art was appointed to a US government commission. While the Biden Administration's shields its own, it also targets regular Americans it dislikes. (03:20) Gun owners with its unconstitutional ATF rules, parents at school board of meetings labeled as threats by the FBI, and censorship of inconvenient information. This brings us here today. Congress performing its oversight duties has been ignored. Founders established a system of checks and balances and that has been dismissed. Congress and the American people we represent have been disrespected, so we are here to say no more. We will not stand by while the DOJ covers up information subpoenaed by Congress and refuses to comply with our vote holding the AG in contempt. It is not that DOJ cannot prosecute Garland, it is that they're choosing not to because they wish to protect the President and his obedient lackey. And I understand that this sounds extreme, it sounds extreme to put the AG in handcuffs and drag him in here. And I'm here. (04:12) I'll tell you why I'm here, what motivates me, because what the DOJ is doing in my hometown in Houston, they're willing to arrest a regular citizen, put them in handcuffs, charge them with ridiculous crimes. And for what? Because that particular citizen, man named Dr. Heim, decided to expose a crime in Texas. That crime was performing harmful gender transition practices on minors. He was indicted for alleged HIPAA violations. And this demonstrates that Merrick Garland and this DOJ's determination to target whistleblowers who oppose their ideology. They want to protect themselves, but they want to attack regular citizens. They aim to use the full force of our legal system to protect their allies and silence dissent, and we can't handle that double standard. This new motion to hold Merrick Garland is the next natural step to rebuff the Biden Administration's attempt to run a rough shot over our constitutional system. Thank you. I yield back, to Ms. Hageman.

Thank you and good morning. I am co-sponsoring this inherent contempt resolution because it is the job of Congress to hold the Attorney General accountable for his actions of refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena when the Department of Justice refuses to do so. Two weeks ago, the full House of Representatives voted to hold Merrick Garland in criminal contempt of Congress. According to the Congressional Research Service, the recipient of a duly issued and valid congressional subpoena has a legal obligation to comply absent a valid and overriding privilege or other legal justification, but the subpoena is only as effective as the means by which it may be enforced. Without a process by which Congress can coerce compliance or detour noncompliance, the subpoena would be reduced to a formalized request rather than a constitutionally based demand for information. While the DOJ may claim that it has a valid and overriding privilege due to President Biden exerting executive privilege over the audio and video recordings in question, there are no grounds for withholding the recordings from his interview with Special Counsel Hur, considering that the Department of Justice provided the transcript months ago. (06:37) The moment that the transcript was released, the right to exert executive privilege was waived. The tapes are important for several reasons. First, transcripts have admittedly been altered by this White House for previous speeches and events, so having the transcript verified is accurate by the recordings would be very useful. Second, while transcripts can show us what was said, they do not reveal how something was said, the time it took to say it or the manner of speaking. The Department of Justice has already acknowledged that the transcript and the recordings are not identical, and we must be allowed to know to what extent they are different. As President Biden, Congressional Democrats, and even Merrick Garland himself liked to proclaim, no one is above the law. The Executive Branch has grown too powerful and has continually encroached upon the duties of the legislative branch. This particular incident goes to the very heart of the investigative and oversight functions of Congress. The resolution offered by Representative Luna is simply the enforcement mechanism constitutionally required when the executive branch refuses to comply with the explicit orders directed from the legislative branch.

Thank you. My name is Mark Alford from Missouri. I want to thank Anna for leading this charge for

... justice and transparency in our body and in our government and in our nation. Recently the Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland has displayed a blatant disregard for this body. By refusing to comply with two lawful subpoenas, Attorney General Garland has violated our authority and undermined the integrity of this institution. Earlier this month, we voted to hold Attorney General Garland in criminal contempt of Congress. However, the Department of Justice informed Speaker Mike Johnson, that they would not prosecute the AG for this contempt. This response, while expected sets a dangerous precedent. If the executive branch can simply ignore Congress without any consequences, it threatens the very function and foundation of our democratic process. (08:54) When an individual refuses to comply with Congress's request, we are left with three options, criminal, civil, or inherent contempt. Now both criminal and civil contempt rely on the executive branch for enforcement, which clearly is not going to happen in this case. The founding fathers designed our government to protect our freedoms, to stand against tyranny and to combat an all powerful executive branch. Inherent contempt is our constitutional authority to hold individuals accountable directly. This power allows Congress to detain and try individuals who defy our subpoenas. It is a crucial tool that ensures we can fulfill our legislative responsibilities independently. (09:43) In the House Rules and Manual, the 118th Congress, Jefferson's Manual, you can find inherent contempt mentioned in pages 141 through 147. Inherent contempt has been used by the US House of Representative more than a hundred times since 1795 and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. If we allow the Department of Justice and Attorney General Garland to dictate whether or not a congressional subpoena is enforced, we risk becoming subordinate to the executive branch and that cannot happen. This is unacceptable. Congress must never rely on the actions of the other branches to carry out our constitutional responsibilities under Article One. What does Attorney General Merrick Garland have to hide? No one is above the law. Americans deserve transparency and accountability. With that, I yield to our class President Russell Fry.

Thank you Mr. Alford. Thank you Ms. Luna for doing this. I think this is really important. Unprecedented times, call for unprecedented measures. The amount of times that this administration, the Department of Justice, and the weaponized system of government have stonewalled this Congress are certainly unprecedented. I've said it once and I'll say it again, oversight is one of the most important tools that any Congress including this one have in our toolbox. It is imperative that our government remains three equal, co-equal branches of government, not a Biden administration that remains supreme at the expense of the Congress and the courts. (11:20) The information that Merrick Garland refuses to turn over to Congress is imperative to have our impeachment inquiry and our legislative oversight. We are entitled to the evidence. And as Harriet Hageman said, to the extent that there was ever executive privilege, they have waived that with the release of the transcript. Even though this use of inherent contempt of Congress has been dormant for many years, it has been used several times, as Mr. Alford talked about. It is necessary now to be able to use our constitutionally based authority to reaffirm our own legislative power. Article One is Article One for a reason. (11:55) The Supreme Court case of McGrain v. Daugherty put it best, to paraphrase, "A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information. And where the legislative body does not itself possess the information, recourse must be had to others who do possess it." From day one, house Republicans have been working to conduct our constitutional duty of oversight and to unturn every stone including these tapes that we are working to cover up. From day one this administration has been stonewalling those investigations, delay after delay. It is time to push back on that and demand real accountability. It is clear the need to vote on an inherent contempt of Congress is necessary to hold Merrick Garland accountable for his failure to answer the House of Representatives and to the American people. And now I'm going to yield to my colleague from Ohio Max Miller.

And thank you all for hosting this. Congress has oversight responsibility over the executive branch, it's that simple. Congress also has the power to issue subpoenas as instruments of the legislative branch's oversight function. We all don't take this responsibility lightly and we don't use this power on a whim like others continuously do. Refusing to comply with the Congressional subpoena is a serious matter, it shows a contempt for our constitutional process. In this case, it shows contempt by one branch of government for the power of an equal branch of government. Attorney General Garland refused to comply with a valid congressional subpoena and now we're going to do what we need to do to uphold Congress's important oversight powers. By refusing to turn over audio recordings from Special Counsel Robert Hur's interviews with President Biden, Attorney General Garland is intentionally impeding the congressional investigation process. The American people deserve to know if their leaders are competent or not to make important decisions for our country. (13:48) President Biden is claiming executive privilege to withhold these materials, which is just silly considering that the transcripts have already been released. Now the Department of Justice is undermining Congress yet again by refusing to act on the Contempt of Congress Resolution passed by the House and us a few weeks ago. Let me be clear, I don't take this lightly and I don't believe anyone standing up here does as well, but Congress must be able to fulfill its duty to provide robust oversight of the executive branch. Those who impede this important work should be held accountable even if you're the Attorney General of the United States. The American people deserve integrity in our institutions and Congress must have the ability to carry out its constitutional duties. Congress will continue to hold the Biden administration accountable and you're not special just because your last name is Biden. Thank you. I yield back.

Go on. Go on.

[Inaudible 00:14:44].

Good morning everybody. Thank you for coming this morning. The one word that will characterize the Biden administration is lawless. If you look at what Biden has done since he's stepped into office, it can only be described as that. Joe Biden intentionally disobeyed the Supreme Court of the United States by giving over a hundred billion dollars worth of student loan relief, meaning that my plumbers, our pipe fitters, our welders, our carpenters, our LPNs, our LVNs, convenience store clerks have been forced to pay off the debt of people that have voluntarily taken on this burden. (15:21) As my colleague from Texas noted, Joe Biden opened up the borders, criminal illegal aliens are kidnapping, raping and murdering our children, this simply must stop. And the only way that this is going to stop is if Congress stands up and performs their Article One duties. So I am incredibly disappointed that half of this stage is not full of Democrats because this is not a partisan issue, this is an Article One authority that we have. The founding fathers wrote us first in the Constitution, and initially they were a concerned that we would have too much power over the executive branch, and that

... has not become the case because many of our predecessors have abdicated their responsibility as members of Congress, and that stops today. So Merrick Garland needs to come here. He needs to produce exactly what he's been told to produce by the Congress of the United States of America because as Mr. Alford alluded to and said directly, no one is above the law.

Well, I want to thank Congresswoman Luna for highlighting this important issue. Compliance with subpoenas is a responsibility of the executive branch that they cannot ignore, that they cannot wish away. It is part of the co-equal balance between the branches of government that was put in place by the founders in the Constitution. I carry a constitution with me all the time. It is not just advisory, it's not just suggestion. It's actually the rules of the road. (16:54) And just as we are required to comply with the rules, so is the executive branch. And when subpoenas are issued for information that we are entitled to as a co-equal branch of government to provide that oversight that is necessary to conduct the business of Congress passing laws and legislation, the administration must comply. So this is not a suggestion to the administration that they have to comply. This is a mandate just as this is a mandate for both all three branches of government, but especially for the two that are being addressed today, the executive and the legislative branches. (17:40) I'm honored to be on the Judiciary committee. I'm honored to be a subcommittee chairman. The subcommittee I chair is one that was just created this Congress by Chairman Jordan. It is a compliance and accountability to oversight. So over the past year and a half, I have been having hearings, bringing administration officials up, asking them why they are failing to comply with various subpoenas or information requests from the Judiciary Committee. Sometimes we get more compliance. Sometimes we need that additional time to negotiate. (18:14) This negotiation over the Hur transcripts has been going on for several months behind the scenes with staff and in front of the American people because we need to see the actual recordings to make sure that it matches up with the transcripts. As Ms. Hagerman said, we understand that they have doctored transcripts in the past, so we need to make sure that it matches up. And there are certain nuances within the recordings that don't come to light in transcripts. So having that recording is critical for the judiciary and oversight committees to do their jobs. It is incumbent upon the Attorney General to comply with the subpoena. The excuse of executive privilege does not exist when you waive it, and they did waive it by providing us with the transcript. And my colleagues are here to insist on the prerogatives of the House. It is within our authority to exercise this inherent contempt authority. And I commend Congresswoman Luna for bringing this to the public's attention. Thank you.

Thank you for being here today, and thank you to Congresswoman Luna for bringing this to our attention in such a succinct way. If you look around and you see everybody that's here today. It's an incredible variety, a cross section of the Republican Party. It's not just a fringe element, it's not just a fringe movement, but it's a movement to bring back balance to something that's really become out of balance, and that is the American government. (19:57) Right now, if you look at the executive privilege, the executive power that exists right now, the fact that a president can ignore laws, can ignore the constitution, that he can actually go in and take control of the legislative branch's responsibility, which is fiscal, that he can ignore the sovereign border, that he can literally break laws and not be held accountable, that's why this great cross section of the Republican Party is here today. (20:22) If we can't hold him accountable, who can? If you look in the last couple of years, like the last few years, the great invasion at the southern border of criminals, literally here to do harm to us, of foreign nationals from communist countries, from Islamic fundamentalist countries that would do harm to your children and to this great nation. It's egregious. We've been ignored for far too long, and this is a good attempt at bringing us back into balance. And I think that if we don't do this, we'll continue to be trampled. (20:55) I think if you look at most of the time we spend in Congress, the majority we spend in Congress is trying to bring into balance bureaucracies and presidential executive orders that are outside the constitutional parameters. I hope that we can get this accomplished because I think it sets a new precedence based on something that we've always had, which is the Constitution, but in this administration it has not been held accountable. And with that, I yield to Congressman Tim Burchett.

Well, thank you very much. Luna, thank you for allowing us to be here. And the mama of Baby Henry, possibly the fourth best looking child born in the last 60 years. (21:37) As the 435th most powerful member of Congress, I'm always, when I'm pulling up the end here, all the good cliches have been used and all the sayings have been used, but actually every dad got one of them are the truth. This is a serious situation. A couple of weeks ago, the House passed a resolution to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress. He refused to comply with the subpoenas. Can you imagine if one of us or one of you was called into court in your own hometown, what would happen? You'd be arrested. You'd probably be arrested in the middle of the night. (22:10) Of course, he was covering up to prevent the president and prevent the American people from hearing his interview with Robert Hur, and he later called the president a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. The American people deserve to know if they're president is an elderly man with a poor memory, especially going into election year, and especially the guy who carries the nuclear football and has our nuclear numbers. (22:38) Merrick Garland refused to comply with Congress while we are trying to get to the bottom of this. We have these rules in place for a reason. Congress is supposed to be a regulatory authority over the executive branch, not the other way around. The founding fathers had it right. This administration has arrogantly thumbed its nose at the American people. It's wrong and we need to correct it. Our attorney general is not above the law. If he broke the rules, dadgummit, he should face the consequences. Thank you, Luna. Good morning.

We'll now open it up for some brief questions before we head to conference.

[inaudible 00:23:14]. Speaker Johnson has said that he will try to enforce this subpoena through the courts. Why force [inaudible 00:23:19] contempt vote then? Do you believe what he's trying to do is not enough?

I think that Speaker Johnson is open to discussions on how to best enforce this. But what I will say is that with what's currently happening in our country, and I'm sure Fry and Haman want to back me up on this, I think that that process would, A, take a very long time. And B, why would we do that when we have the direct ability to do it here in the House? What you are seeing is the American people have a deep distrust in our ability to not only effectively govern, but also to... They've lost faith within the Department of Justice and that we are truly an equal country. Poor white, brown, Black Americans don't have the privilege of ignoring subpoenas when they're called to court. I

I think that it's pretty egregious that the man that's in charge and really the head enforcement officer is basically choosing to break the law. And I actually want to point to what this letter that I have actually that was addressed to Chairman Comer and Jordan, that was actually from Biden's attorney stating that Garland asked him to invoke executive privilege. Now again, Garland, if he wants this to not happen on Friday, he needs to bring us those tapes so that we can hear it. And frankly I would like the Democrats to hear it as well, but the fact that he's choosing to blatantly not do that, I think the American people need to ask what is he indeed willing to hide that he'd be willing to break the law and that is exactly what he's doing. Next question.

Just one clarification. Are you making the motion to tee up the vote on Friday? So it would be a motion today-

So... Go ahead.

... or motion on Friday. And then second, how would you expect this to basically work with the sergeant at arms? Are they capable of actually going and taking him into custody? Where would he be held? How would this actually happen?

So to answer your first question, as you saw yesterday, we had over a hundred members that are not currently here. And so what we are doing is we are waiting for those members to get back so that we can actually call it up. Otherwise, for those who are more parliamentary nerds on the issue, you know that if we don't have the votes, it could potentially fail on a motion to table. And so we're going to make sure that all of those members are present before we do call it up, at which point leadership has 48 hours. And to answer your second question, again, what Garland could do and the right thing to do would be for him to present himself to the House of Representatives. (25:33) I think this idea and the hypothetical that he's hoping for in which the sergeant at arms would go pull him into custody. If we pass this and it's successful, we will direct the speaker to call up the sergeant of arms, of which they do have the authority under this inherent contempt to motion to bring him into custody. 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.

How confident are you that you will have the votes to actually pass this resolution? We spoke to a number of Republican members just last night. Obviously you mentioned a lot of people aren't here, but a number of Republican members said they don't know enough about this, they need to learn more about this, they haven't heard about it. So if you can't convince those people by Friday, are you concerned that this could fail?

So I'm actually doing exactly what we're talking about and talking with my Republican colleagues. Those that are aware of it, as you're seeing behind me, we have a great cross section of what the conference represents. Everyone is aware that this is absolutely backed by the Supreme Court, that we have the constitutional authority to do this and that this is not a laughing matter. A lot of people are very frustrated with the fact that it seems that Congress has been ignored and disrespected for a number of years and as a result of that, they're willing to consider this. And so again, I have yet to hear anyone say that they are going to vote on a motion to table which would prevent this from coming to the floor. And what I would also say is that we actually released a dear colleague letter that was quite educational the topic and right after this of which we're going to be calling it shortly here in a few minutes so we can go to conference and continue to educate. (27:06) But I'm actually not concerned about that because we've actually been receiving I think a net positive on all of our responses. And you're starting to see now Democrats of which I'd like to remind people that Democrats were actually considering using this, I believe back in 2018. And even Pelosi was considering using this. But I believe the reason why they didn't is because it also allows the House of Representatives to essentially display this, the American people hold a hearing and if Hageman wants to jump in on this, but that would also open people up to discovery. And I believe that Pelosi did not want that. Hageman do you want to jump in?

I just want to quickly say that I think that there should be some curiosity among the press as to why the White House does not want to release the audio and videotapes. They released the transcript recognizing that executive privilege was invalid in this circumstance and that they were going to have to disclose the interview between Mr. Hur and Mr. Biden. They're at this point, however, refusing to release the audio and videotapes. And I would request that all of you actually drill into the reason for that. We have the transcripts, we know what he said so to the extent there may have been executive privilege available, which I would argue there would not have been, that's why they had to give us the transcripts, they've waived any such privilege the moment that they turned those over. There is an illegitimate reason as to why they're withholding the audio tapes. I would encourage all of you to find out what that reason is.

Going back to the custody question, have you thought of any potential locations and [inaudible 00:28:41] security concerns?

I can tell you that that would be probably at the direction of the speaker, but the last individual that was detained for basically violating Congress's authorities was actually put up at a very nice hotel. I would hope that Garland would actually present himself and not make us do this. But again, you're seeing that Garland is willingly breaking the law and that is extremely disturbing being that he's supposed to be head of all law enforcement in this country. Any other questions?

Is there any concern about setting a precedent where Democrats could use this down the road if a Republican does not comply with the subpoena?

As I stated earlier that Democrats actually apparently did try to do this and upon my research, the reason why I don't believe that they wanted to is because again, you open up the hearing to discovery. And I don't believe that they wanted their targets to be able to make a valid argument to the American people. You see, it's a lot easier with a two tier justice system to have the DOJ do your dirty work and say, "Look, I didn't do it." But the fact is that the DOJ is at direction of this administration, and it is extremely alarming that we have an administration that is picking and choosing who they're going to allow to get a free pass, that there is no equal justice in this country. And that's exactly why we're all putting our names, our honor on this is because we believe that we are in a scary time in our country and that if we allow this to continue that we won't have a free and fair country.

Can I say something on that?

Yeah, of course.

I think it would be refreshing if the Democrats and the White House would choose to follow the constitution.

Can I say something?

Yeah, of course.

Are you asking us if we're concerned that the Democrat party will politicize Congress to the point where they start doing things like impeaching sitting presidents? Is that what you're asking?

Or we've had Republicans not comply with the January 6th committee subpoenas and could they use this down the road-

Aren't they in jail?

Yeah, they're in jail.

I think they're in jail. So are you suggesting the Attorney General should be in jail? Because that's what it sounds like. Listen, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So the Democrat Party under Nancy Pelosi politicized this body to the point where it's destructive to the fabric of our nation. And it is time for a reckoning. This has got to stop. The only way that this is going to stop is if the President of the United States reads this. This says, " Joe, read this, the Congress." This is the Constitution of the United States of America. So this has to be adhered to. This is the law of the land. Is that clear? Now, do your jobs, people, for Pete's sakes.

Any other questions before we wrap it up because we've got to get to conference? Thank you all for being here. Again, Garland still has time to comply with our requests. Bring us the tapes. We want to see it, we want to hear it. And if you don't, the vote will be called up and we will hold you in inherent contempt. The vote will come to the floor. I encourage you all though, to ask the White House what indeed they're hiding. What is Garland hiding? And thank you so much for covering this today. Thanks guys.

See you soon.