Why couldn't Garland just say

[Boydog]

he would enforce the subpoenas and that he believed not honoring said subpoenas was contempt of Congress. He is a very smart man and a very good man but he needs to fully realize what peril we face as a nation. The fact that he feels the need to parse words in regards to a congressional committee practically having to stand on its head to serve a damn subpoena is mind numbing.
Somebody call Sally Yates.

[FBaggins]

1. Because it's against DOJ policy

He “says” that he will enforce subpoenas by actually doing it.

Or rather - prosecute for the failure to obey one… courts “enforce” them

[Boydog]

3. Like I said Call Sally Yates

[FBaggins]

4. The House just voted yesterday

I haven’t even seen it reported that the referral has even gone to DOJ yet… and you’re whining that the AG hasn’t announced a prosecution yet?

Did you know that the last sever such referrals were never even brought to a grand jury (let alone prosecuted)?

[Budi]

7. K & R Thank You!

This intentional targeted berrating bs is ridiculous.

Suddenly EVERYBODY with a keyboard is an 'Attorney General', skilled in the legal system.

[Boydog]

9. We'll see if he takes any action.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

10. Doncha know he's senile?!?!?

I read that here yesterday. I guess because he hasn't shipped every Republican to Gitmo to await trial....
It's fascinating how many people here don't give a damn about the Constitution, they just want to lock everyone up and ignore due process.

[Budi]

14. Yup. And do it RFN!!

[Boydog]

34. We are trying to enforce a damn subpoena

Not talking about an earth shattering event here.
These bastards know exactly how to obstruct, delay, defer and distract. People are completely fed up. Plus, we are not talking about your Dad’s Republicans we are talking about people who have NO love for Democracy because it gets in their way. We need to put Bannon away for a long, long time.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

40. Lock him away for a long time for ignoring a subpoena?

Someone really doesn't understand cruel and unusual punishment. Do we throw him in jail anyways if he does appear and takes the fifth?
Really sucks having a Constitution.

[Boydog]

41. No but this is Steve Freaking Bannon.

who would be in jail right now if Trump hadn’t saved his butt. I’m sure there’s plenty more crime where that came from.

[ShazzieB]

70. That's not how it works.

[LiberalLovinLug]

89. If tne slow moving, last resort, style of enforcement is the status quo...

While Republicans obfuscate, delay, build their false narrative

[mcar]

80. Again, the DOJ just got the referral today

Today. That's when they got it. Why are you acting like they've done nothing? They just got it today.

[Budi]

85. K & R "Again, the DOJ just got the referral today"

Thanks for informing the "Today, I think I'll be a... US Attorney General !!! crowd.

"Again, the DOJ just got the referral today
Today. That's when they got it. "

[mcar]

86. So many people know more than the experts

The internet is an amazing thing.

[Budi]

87. LOL.. 🥂

Enjoy your day, mcar

[mcar]

88. You too Budi

[Grasswire2]

16. "intentional targeted berrating bs"?

Is that what you call the legitimate and frank opinion of rank and file Democratic voters?

Seems to me the evidence here is that some people want rank and file Dem voters to just shut up.

[Budi]

19. Lol. Suddenly EVERYBODY's a skilled Attorney General

Jfc

[AZSkiffyGeek]

20. Seems to me that one of the rules here is support Democrats

And another is don’t bash Democratic figures. There are lots of places to vent about how Garland isn’t keeping you personally apprised about what the DoJ is doing.

[Budi]

26. Ya. No shit.

"There are lots of places to vent about how Garland isn’t keeping you personally apprised about what the DoJ is doing."

Soc media has to have like minded feeds to vent on.

[monkeyman1]

45. been me or you ,be in the can already !

[Fiendish Thingy]

50. And would be out already

Because hasty actions do not serve Justice, and result in failed prosecutions.

[Cetacea]

67. Is he a democrat? Why did Mitch and Bush promote him?

And we'd better write a memo to Adam Schiff...

[Budi]

71. Lol. Why did they NOT seat him on the SC? Better explanation to the kerfuffel

Duh.

🙄

[Cetacea]

81. That came later, to spite Obama.

DUH

[live love laugh]

82. Thank you 🙏🏽

[soldierant]

51. I think it actually goes to the US Attorney for whatever District DC is in.

And then He/she "shall" (the word in the law) hand the case to a grand jury.

[onenote]

57. Yes. In fact, it already has been sent to theDC US Attorney, Channing Phillips

Phillips could decline to charge Bannon, charge him quickly, or use a grand jury to investigate and indict him. It is expected that a decision as to how to proceed will be made in consultation with top DOJ officials and will be made quickly. In 1983, when Congress referred Rita Lavelle for criminal contempt, her case was presented to a grand jury and an indictment was returned in eight days.

But some folks here think 24 hours is too long to wait.

[FBaggins]

62. The US Attorneys are part of the DOJ

Far too much is being made of the "shall" language. Not only is it not worded as "shall hand it to" (it's "whose duty it shall be to bring&quot , but multiple administrations have interpreted the law as the DOJ still having discretion on whether or not to bring it to a grand jury.

Lots of such referrals have not been brought to a grand jury (in fact it has been the norm for decades now) and nobody has had any success convincing a court that they had a legal duty to do so.

Now... in this case I suspect that they actually will. But they could easily wait until a court clears up the privilege claims if negotiations don't arrive at a deal before then. Which means that were possibly in for months of whining here that the AG isn't doing his job (not that we haven't already).

[Funtatlaguy]

18. I love Biden but really wanted Sally Yates instead of Garland.

[MyOwnPeace]

2. I supported his nomination.....

and cheered when he arrived at the DOJ headquarters and staff was there to greet him with applause.

It's time for him to step up and show his staff and the American people that he earned that respect and joy in his being named to that position.

[BigmanPigman]

61. Hear, hear.

[brush]

5. Yeah, we need a non-timid AG. He doesn't inspire confidence...

that he's up to taking on these republican insurrectionists/criminals.

[Grasswire2]

17. hear, hear

well said

[AZSkiffyGeek]

21. Screw due process!

I want it now!!!!!!

[Boydog]

43. I'm not at all against due process. But let's get on with the due process.

[ShazzieB]

66. No, DON'T screw due process!

I hope you're joking, because that way lies madness and chaos.

Among other things, not following due process is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We can't protect the Constitution from the attacks of RWNJs by violating its provisions ourselves.

[MyOwnPeace]

22. "All just one person's opinion mind you."

(yeah, you could get confused:

Is it a good PERSON'S opinion........

or:

a good person's OPINION?)

I'm going for both - a good PERSON and a good OPINION!

[Boydog]

29. A wonderful post. Thanks

[monkeyman1]

46. see post # 45

[Boydog]

13. I agree. Definitely no time to be timid.

All Dems in Congress need to coalesce, pass Biden’s legislation, get rid of the filibuster and punish the Trump criminals.

[triron]

15. Makes me feel a bit queasy.

[dchill]

55. Timid and prudent are not synonyms.

[Tetrachloride]

12. J is for Justice. 1-2 decades overdue for some of Trump's actions

Moreover, The Pledge of Allegiance’s final words are “... justice for all”

More often than not, it appears the DOJ is afraid of its own shadow and the morning commute.

Casting my vote for Sally Yates

[Celerity]

25. IF Garland refuses (I do not think he will refuse) to enforce, Biden MUST sack him. He has no choice

at that point, as the nation's future hangs in the balance, and IF Garland refuses, he is a clear and present danger via his obstructionism.

IF Garland refuses to enforce and Biden does NOT sack him, we are then on the hot rails to hell, both electorally in 2022 and 2024, and as a nation overall.

If Garland refuses and is rightly sacked, then it, unfortunately, pretty much guarantees at least a chance of another Constitutional crisis, as then the Rethugs and MAGAts will perhaps refuse to obey the new AG, and falsely claim that Biden rigged the game, therefore the DOJ is compromised. Yes, they ARE that hypocrical and crazed.

[FBaggins]

30. Absolutely not

Biden (correctly) made clear that he would not insert politics into the DOJ.

Firing an AG for failure to prosecute a political enemy? Couldn’t get a clearer example.

[Grasswire2]

31. B.S. Total B.S. nt

[Celerity]

39. Sorry, completely disagree. If Garland does refuse, he is blocking the will of the House and

the POTUS, and he would be allowing the floodgates of disobedience towards Congressional power to be thrust wide open.

Biden would have to act, as Garland, at that point, is a clear and present danger to the rule of law and to our democratic (small d) institutions. One man cannot have that much power.

[Boydog]

47. I totally agree

[wnylib]

48. I don't understand where all this anxiety

that Garland might refuse to prosecute is coming from.

There have been a number of times in US history when people were prosecuted for Contempt of Congress when they refused to appear. What is happening now with Bannon is normal legal procedure. Once the referral is made to Garland, the next step is for Garland to get a grand jury indictment. Then Garland can send marshalls after Bannon.

Why on earth do so many people fear that Garland will not take this to a grand jury?

Bannon will go to the SC for a ruling on executive privilege. He has said he will and I don't doubt it. I don't know if he can be held under arrest prior to a SC ruling. The filing for a SC ruling might be enough to keep him from being arrested - NOT because of Garland, but because the legality of an arrest could be uncertain until the SC decides.

It's not Garland that we need to worry about. It's SCOTUS.

[Celerity]

68. it goes to the DC US Attorney first, & my original reply stated I do not think Garland will block it

[wnylib]

77. You're right. it goes to the DC US District Attorney first.

I mistakenly left that out. But that puts Garland even farther away from the point of taking action.

Yet so many posters here (not you) are wringing their hands over Garland's "inaction" regarding Bannon.

[ShazzieB]

69. I am SO tired if people thinking they have somehow read Garland's mind...

And that they know in advance what he's going to do (or not do) before HE even decides!

I never realized we had so many infallible prognosticators here at DU.

[LymphocyteLover]

59. Yes, agree. Certainly congress has oversight on Garland and can recommend his firing if

he's not doing his job.

[monkeyman1]

49. not a political enemy , a damn crime !! jeeze !

[FBaggins]

64. It isn't an either/or scenario

It's both/and.

It still doesn't change the fact that it would violate the independence of the DOJ.

The president said as much just yesterday. He admitted that his earlier statement hoping for prosecutions was "not appropriate".

"The Department of Justice will make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law. Period. Full stop". He can't turn that into a lie.

[monkeyman1]

73. agreed !

[PufPuf23]

72. There is a difference between politics and wrong doing that threatens

the existence of the nation.

Why the USA has so many problems now is because similar crimes have not been addressed; think Watergate, Iran-Contra, the War Criminals of the GWB administration, etc. during my lifetime.

[BigmanPigman]

65. Good point.

[tritsofme]

90. People here used to post similarly vapid criticisms of Holder.

What’s old is new again.

[ecstatic]

27. These DOJ guys only seem to fear and respect republicans

That is the problem. If it were Mitch McConnell making the criminal referral, there would be no hesitation to indict or arrest. No grand juries needed--he would make the decision unilaterally.

[stillcool]

33. Bill Barr to the rescue.

anyone in the DOJ that had a problem with him, quit.

[wnylib]

76. There is a legal procedure for this that has been

used a number of times already in US history. The procedure has not yet reached the point for Garland to act.

So why all the anxious hyperventilating over the fact that he has not yet acted when he has received anything at this point to act on?

Wikipedia has a detailed entry on how Contempt of Congress charges are handled. It is under "Contempt of Congress." Getting familiar with it could relieve the anxiety that so many people seem to have right now.

[Duppers]

28. I would have liked Eric Holder...

...much, much better.

[Beastly Boy]

32. Because, as you pointed out, he is a very smart man.

First things first. Garland is not the sole arbiter of the contempt charges in question. The criminal referral must be sent to the DC Attorney General's office, not Garland himself. The ultimate decision is made on behalf of the office, which is likely, but not necessarily, to involve Garland. The AG's office must receive a criminal referral for each contempt charge from the House, or else it has no authority to proceed. Were Garland to even hint that he will prosecute the contempt charges before the AG's office actually prosecutes the contempt charges, his credibility and any assumption of impartiality would be immediately challenged by the defense lawyers, and it's a virtual guarantee that, at the very least, the whole case will end up in the hands of the Grand Jury, outside the confines of the AG's office.

Of course, there is no authority that can "enforce the subpoenas". In the case you are referring to, the 1/9 House committee issued the subpoena and found Bannon in contempt, the full House referred the contempt charges for prosecution, the AG's office is looking into the House referral, and should they find Bannon criminally liable, it will be the law enforcement to actually enforce their verdict.

[stillcool]

37. what a spoil-sport!

I didn't even get my first kick in yet. Not to worry, I'm sure someone else will come along shortly and I'll get my kicks in there. Everyone needs their own Democrat to kick, otherwise it's the whole party... regardless of the state they reside in.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

42. There's still Manchin and Sinema

And if McAuliffe and Murphy lose they'll be available. By 2024 it will probably be back to calling Biden a bowl of shit.

[stillcool]

78. yeah...I usually have myself nailed

to the cross, so it's hard to find the joy in it.

[Grasswire2]

44. I'm with Adam Schiff.

The Congress of the United States should not have to "hand off" a criminal referral for the approval of another branch of government. Congress has its own inherent power to compel compliance with its subpoena. A quick rewrite of House rules would allow Speaker Pelosi to summon the Sgt at Arms and direct them to arrest Bannon. Immediately. Could be done today.

[Beastly Boy]

54. I am not sure why the House didn't go this way.

It seems logical to me to at least give this option a serious consideration.

I am assuming that serious consideration took place behind the scene, and for reason(s) unknown to me, the decision was made not to pursue this option. There is a hell of a lot more I don't know about what has been happening than what I do know.

[monkeyman1]

52. should they find criminally liable ---- gag !

[Beastly Boy]

56. It is way beyond any of our pay grade to make this judgement.

This is why Garland is the AG and none of us are. I am not making my own judgement on the matter in deference to his. Is this wrong?

[ShazzieB]

75. Thank you for this comment.

And for your other comments in here. I am ready to scream at how many people here seem to think they know exactly what the AG's thoughts and intentions are and exactly what he is going to do or not to. It's ridiculous. 😱

[Boydog]

53. What authority makes sure the subpoena is honored.

[Beastly Boy]

58. There is a well defined chain of authorities that leads to the subpoena being honored.

I briefly described it earlier. There is no single authority that makes surethe subpoena is honored, and this is very deliberate. As far as I know, it is only an authoritarian regime that would insure there is only one authority to honor the wishes of whoever happens to be in power.

[onenote]

60. One minor correction. It is the US Attorney for the District, not the DC Attorney General.

Otherwise, your post sums it up pretty well. Based on precedent (from 1983), the US Attorney will, in all likelihood (and after consulting with DOJ) present the case to a Grand Jury and the Grand Jury will return an indictment. It took eight days for that process in 1983, so I think DUers who have their hair on fire because they don't see Bannon in handcuffs 24 hours after the House vote need to call out a bit.

[Beastly Boy]

63. You're right, my bad.

[NurseJackie]

74. ...

but he needs to fully realize what peril we face as a nation.

So, you're saying... in a roundabout and backhanded way... that he's "too stupid" eh? Ridiculous!

subpoena is mind numbing.

Not for mature observers who understand what he's doing and why he's doing it. I think he's handling everything just fine.

Relax. Please.

[mcar]

79. I don't actually know what you are talking about

The Bannon contempt referral was just sent to the DOJ today, right? Did Garland make a statement about it?

[Ohio Joe]

83. No, no statement...

Looking at the OP's journal, they appear to put up about a thread a week bashing Garland and the DOJ.

[mcar]

84. That explains it. Thanks.