Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,192 posts)
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 07:34 PM Jul 2019

DOJ says it won't prosecute Barr, Ross after criminal contempt vote

The Department of Justice (DOJ) said Wednesday that federal prosecutors will not prosecute Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross following a House vote to hold the officials in contempt for failing to comply with congressional subpoenas.

"The Department of Justice's long-standing position is that we will not prosecute an official for contempt of Congress for declining to provide information subject to a presidential assertion of executive privilege," Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen wrote in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

The House had rebuked the Trump Cabinet members by passing a criminal contempt resolution earlier this month, largely along party lines. However, it was widely presumed that the Justice Department would not pursue a criminal referral against the top DOJ official.

The full House vote came after the House Oversight and Reform Committee subpoenaed the Commerce and Justice departments earlier this year for documents relating to since-abandoned efforts to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-says-it-wont-prosecute-barr-ross-after-criminal-contempt-vote/ar-AAEOAyB?li=BBnb7Kz

Of course they won't. Trump has politicized the department.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DOJ says it won't prosecute Barr, Ross after criminal contempt vote (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 2019 OP
The DOJ needs to be less under control of Executive. LiberalFighter Jul 2019 #1
It's part of the executive branch along with all other government agencies. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #6
Historically it has been given independence. Blue_true Jul 2019 #8
This is true. But that's not because it's part of the executive branch, The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #9
Barr is not fix to be AG!! riversedge Jul 2019 #10
Our justice system is totally defunct. democratisphere Jul 2019 #2
The DOJ won't be under Republican forever . . . Iliyah Jul 2019 #3
Well, of course not. Did anyone seriously think Deputy AG Rosen would authorize The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #4
American dictator is real. you only need 34 senators. nt Kurt V. Jul 2019 #5
This is a case where once we have the White House, they need to stand trial. nt Blue_true Jul 2019 #7

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
8. Historically it has been given independence.
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 08:04 PM
Jul 2019

No administration, not even Nixon or W, had as practice ignoring congressional summons to appear.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,836 posts)
9. This is true. But that's not because it's part of the executive branch,
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 08:08 PM
Jul 2019

it's because it is currently staffed by Trumpist tools. It worked pretty well as an executive branch agency until now.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,836 posts)
4. Well, of course not. Did anyone seriously think Deputy AG Rosen would authorize
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 07:43 PM
Jul 2019

the prosecution of his boss - if he wanted to keep his job? If he had, he'd have been standing out in the parking lot holding his personal desk paraphernalia in a Xerox paper box the minute the ink dried on his signature. The House still has two other options, though:

(1) A civil lawsuit asking a court to enforce a subpoena, or

(2) Congress’s inherent contempt power, which was how Congress directly enforced contempt rulings under its own constitutional authority until criminal and civil contempt statutes were passed. Under inherent contempt proceedings, the Sergeant-At-Arms can take a person into custody for proceedings to be held in the House. It hasn't been used since the '30s but maybe it's time to dust it off and put it to work.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»DOJ says it won't prosecu...